You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
#1 2006-12-05 22:14:27
- rmrfwindows
- Member
- Registered: 2006-01-28
- Posts: 17
x264 .so missing
Hello. Apparently the cinelerra-cvs in the repository doesn't work and its a little old, so I recently tried to compile cinelerra 2.1. When I ran the configure script, it said I had the x264 headers, but not the library. Looking at the contents of the x264 package, there is, indeed, no .so file. Is there any reason for not having the library in there or is the library part of another package?
However, I did manage to get cinelerra working by installing Frugalware's x264 package in case anyone else runs into the same problem.
Offline
#2 2006-12-19 00:28:19
- predatorfreak
- Member
- Registered: 2006-12-08
- Posts: 13
Re: x264 .so missing
Hello. Apparently the cinelerra-cvs in the repository doesn't work and its a little old, so I recently tried to compile cinelerra 2.1. When I ran the configure script, it said I had the x264 headers, but not the library. Looking at the contents of the x264 package, there is, indeed, no .so file. Is there any reason for not having the library in there or is the library part of another package?
However, I did manage to get cinelerra working by installing Frugalware's x264 package in case anyone else runs into the same problem.
The issue is that the Arch x264 package doesn't pass --enable-shared to ./configure, thus only generating a static library and no shared library. I ended up running into this issue when I was building my own mplayer-svn package for x264 support and other various things, I ended up making my own x264-svn package too.
Offline
#3 2006-12-19 01:44:29
- Snowman
- Developer/Forum Fellow
- From: Montreal, Canada
- Registered: 2004-08-20
- Posts: 5,212
Re: x264 .so missing
Submit a bug report/feature request on the bug tracker.
Offline
#4 2006-12-19 02:52:57
- predatorfreak
- Member
- Registered: 2006-12-08
- Posts: 13
Re: x264 .so missing
Submit a bug report/feature request on the bug tracker.
I will, I'll also add a note in the bug about the redundency of having an x264-svn package and an x264 package, when the x264 package is really just a snapshot of SVN.
Edit: Bug: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6033
Offline
Pages: 1