Kari Pahula wrote: > Mailed to mentors, we like to do stuff in public and I don't claim to > be infallible, either. ;-)
OK! > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:09:49AM +0200, Vedran Fura? wrote: >> Kari Pahula wrote: >>> As far as the technical side of packaging goes, it seems to be mostly >>> in a good shape. One thing you should see about is not compiling >>> statically the included libraries (boost and libjs, at least) but >>> using the shared libraries in Debian already. It would save space on >>> users' systems and is a good practice securitywise. >>> >>> Try to make a patch to send to upstream about this change. I'm sure >>> they wouldn't mind having optional configure switches to not build the >>> included libraries and using the ones present on a system. It would >>> save your workload in the long run, too. >> I mailed him, here is his response: >> >> "That can be done, and I am willing to do it if debian/ubuntu teams >> insist on it, but this solution has its problems: > > I was thinking of a configure option to not compile the included > libraries but to use the ones present on the system already and leave > as the default behaviour what bfilter's build system currently does. Upstream sent me a patch, this is fixed know (I hope). % ldd /usr/bin/bfilter [...] libmozjs.so.0d => /usr/lib/libmozjs.so.0d (0xb7cf6000) libboost_program_options-gcc-mt-1_33_1.so.1.33.1 => /usr/lib/libboost_program_options-gcc-mt-1_33_1.so.1.33.1 (0xb7cc3000) libboost_regex-gcc-mt-1_33_1.so.1.33.1 => /usr/lib/libboost_regex-gcc-mt-1_33_1.so.1.33.1 (0xb7c19000) [...] >> You mean something like this: >> $ grep -rih copyright bfilter-1.0.2/ | sort -ufi >> ...is the right way? Yes, quite long. > > I'd do something like this: Done. Please check the new release. Regards, Vedran Furač
