On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote: > I don't understand you, ... first you complain that the gtk package is too > old, > then you say it is because of a known egcs buug, and there is no solution > apart > from no compiling the test program that cause problem, and then you said it is > not the place of the debian package to deal with it. So why do you complain > then that the gtk package is too old ? Best would be to inform the list of the > problem, and complain to the egcs folk like you said.
I feel that I have been misunderstood. I stated -rather than complained- that because the existing gtk was a little old -I had no problem with that, but some programs did- I took the liberty of creating my own, which I placed for public access, and offered it to be include in the official tree. I also said that the solution was to manually compile the offending files -that is different from not compiling them at all, after all they are test files- and then proceed with the building process. As you correctly state, the best thing was to inform the list, which I believe I have already done, otherwise I could keep the final package for myself. And yes, an egcs bug should not be reported to the debian bug list, and I don't think I am being paranoid about this. Maybe someone else feels different about this? And in any case, complaints -which mine was not- are good when they lead in constructive criticism. But I have the impression that you accuse me of having great expectations, whilst underestimating the work that is needed for all this. I really apologize if I have lead you to such conclusions. My only intention was to help. > I have tried (and succeeded) in building the glib1.1.12 packages, but i had to > manually remove the noninst_PROGRAMM line in the MAkefile.[am,inž..] not very > easy. although I presume this works ok, I am being a little sceptical about manually altering the Makefiles, esp. when they actually work for everyone including ppc, albeit minding the compiler problem. > Also perhaps you know why since 1.1.9 or earlier, gtk complains about > undefined > target deNONE when trying to compile the po files ? I guess i have a > misconfigurated locale stuff or something like that. But then my 2.2.0-pre4 > kernel died on me yesterday night in middle compile, without even any kind of > debug message and messed all my partitions, i will have to reinstall stuff > again. no can't say I do, I never noticed anything like that. > I don't agree, a little patch that only compiles testglib and friends if we > are > not on powerpc would be nice, Anyway, they don't get into the debian package, > so there is no need to compile them ... I strongly disagree. A wrongly built library should show that it is so, by way of the test files. If they don't build ok, or don't run ok, because of a library error -NOT a compiler error- then we should know that, and save ourselves from making an incorrect library from distributing. There is no need for them to be included, but there is certainly a need to compile them. That's why they are included in the first place. > no offense taken, it is just that you have to be aware of the volunteer status > of every debian developper, and that there are only 24hours a day ... As I said about this, I am completely in accord with that, and that's why I offered my help in the first place. I imagine that you agree with me about ending this seemingly never ending conversation, and proceeding with the important stuff, such as actually producing. Konstantinos Margaritis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
