On Wednesday 02 January 2002 14:35, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 08:32:28AM -0600, Kevin Corry wrote: > > If you are interested in creating an automake/libtool setup, give it a > > try and I will look it over and see if we can include it in the future. > > OK, will do.
Great! > > > > Currently the dlist package doesn't have any version number, but I'm > > > > sure we can come up with one if it makes things easier. I will try to > > > > do that tomorrow. > > > > > > Since libdlist is so small (and not subject to a lot of revision), you > > > might just want to statically link it and avoid the issue altogether. > > > > I suppose that would be possible. But wouldn't that just bloat the size > > of the engine core and plugin libraries? > > It would sacrifice a little bit of bloat (libdlist.so on my i386 system is > about 10k) for not having to worry about shared library management for this > library. If you want to just keep the versioning in sync with the other > library, that should work, too, or you can have a completely separate > versioning scheme (in which case libdlist will need to go in a separate > binary package). Hmm...libdlist.so is almost 50k on my system. And I don't think I have any debugging turned on. I'll look into what changes would be necessary to make dlist a static library and let you know what I find out. > > > > [man pages for LvmUtils] > > > > > > I can certainly do that; for the most part, it should just be a matter > > > of copying the corresponding LVM man pages and noting differences in > > > behaviour, right? > > > > Pretty much. Those utilities are meant to model the ones from LVM. All of > > the options should be the same, except some of the options are ignored in > > EVMS, either because they aren't implemented yet or aren't pertinent. If > > you glance through the code in engine/UserInterfaces/LvmUtils, each > > source file has a function called parse_options() that should give you an > > idea of which options are ignored in EVMS. > > I will spend some time on this after I have a satisfactory set of initial > packages. One other thing, should I change the terminology in the man > pages to use the EVMS terms, since that is what the commands actually do, > or leave them with the LVM terms, since they correspond to the commands? In the documentation that we have, I have tried to move towards using the EVMS terminology, so I would suggest the same for the man pages. > > Ok. So the idea would be just to run "make configure" instead of > > explicitly calling "autoconf"? > > Yes. The automake stuff does a pretty good job of this, and it gets pretty > complex with all of autoconf's dependencies and re-generating individual > makefiles. I'll prepare an experimental automake patch so you can decide > if you want to go that way. Cool. -Kevin
