From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F391548E52 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:07:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA2968D1F5; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:07:12 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D59A968D15D for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:07:06 +0200 (EET) Authentication-Results: mail0.khirnov.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=khirnov.net header.i=@khirnov.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=PjP1brEA; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481212405F2 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:07:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id o-TskPmTyJge for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:07:05 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1706526425; bh=ki6MMzGYv2pKCLvlTIAOJicZJx7KDRZ0mmd9ujJ2p7U=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=PjP1brEAzlSazIrmjgJ/CNAKHm1tFdtSNT5eSSmx1IfhB9Q+crhPuGNajGkc70R+F iynLxPmr8+GByHAoWfb7hIdHO8iSUhWxao60SGbUQf8ATDiUfoyyP4pmkuO8/ouUgx wxaWtretfnKxe9ndaIQsCzJT3rkf5cq9L/Q9SafjcrGlHf1ruQBkWbN0vx9nLooJ+v U1XHGH4/b0BsQ9/gxGuNw0/e8a8CwjbfE53sbuCNcw0KRNcTMKOQxA1cx91DeAZfSc McvT3H/GbLKKjWxhGgeI73yjdsBKB9fcDyz6TYkkbzFgJGyWZZpsgdBRD+oidK55U0 5Ymq1af+XCJYQ== Received: from lain.khirnov.net (lain.khirnov.net [IPv6:2001:67c:1138:4306::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "lain.khirnov.net", Issuer "smtp.khirnov.net SMTP CA" (verified OK)) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C4F62404E5 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:07:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 817801601B9; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:07:05 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: References: <20240128174950.20735-1-anton@khirnov.net> <170652369508.1197.9274216714495603536@lain.khirnov.net> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:07:05 +0100 Message-ID: <170652642550.8914.5776548339039666051@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] lavc: move bitstream filters into bsf/ subdir X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Quoting Andreas Rheinhardt (2024-01-29 11:55:19) > Anton Khirnov: > > Quoting Andreas Rheinhardt (2024-01-29 10:57:19) > >> Anton Khirnov: > >>> +# add libavcodec/ to include path for bsfs > >>> +$(addprefix libavcodec/, $(sort $(filter bsf/%,$(OBJS_BSF-yes)))): CPPFLAGS += -I$(SRC_PATH)/libavcodec/ > >> > >> 1. Why sort? > > > > To get rid of duplicates, otherwise the flags can be added multiple > > times. > > > > Why not just use libavcodec/bsf/%.o: CPPFLAGS += -I$(SRC_PATH)/libavcodec/ Sure, it just didn't occur to me. > I was actually proposing that the dependencies for stuff in libavcodec/ > stays in libavcodec/Makefile. Okay, then I would appreciate it if you were more explicit about how you want things changed in the future, it would save time. > PS: Why don't you move e.g. bsf_internal.h as well as bsf.c itself? Because I only wanted to move the bitstream filters themselves in this patch. I have no strong feelings about those two files moving under bsf/ or not. > And where has this actually been discussed for there to be > "overwhelming" consensus for it? As I remember it, various people have complained about the number of files in libavcodec/* for years - on IRC, ML, developer meetings, etc. I don'recall anyone ever being against it. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".