On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: > 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
i am not sure this is easily possible when doing debian packages, the packaging system, at least what i use want to do everything, you cannot easily interrupt it, compile some stuff yourself, andthen continue. that's why a little patch that conturns the probelm is nice, since it will permitt automatic compilation of by the dbuild demon. > 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. No sorry, my message was perhaps a bit to sharp if you feel that way, i just want to explain the things to you the way i see it, and perhaps since you are not (yet?) a debian developper, there are some things that you don't see the same way as us. > > > 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. you have to understand that the modification don't gho into the original tarball, but into the debian patch. I had difficulties in hand buidling debian packages, so i need to modify the makefile, and launch every thing in one smooth run. But then i have not been at this very long ... > > > 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. Are you aware that gtk/glib1.1 is almost not used in debian ? most packages are built against 1.06 still i think ? > > > 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. Ok this will be my last comment about it. Friendly, Sven LUTHER
