Hi, > I will start over later today. > > I want just to say that I did not use HB_*_INSTALL overrides when > building rpm... > > It is true that I used HB_*_INSTAL in a previous "make; make install" > style compilation that I used to check which files were compiled but > it was in another terminal session....
Okay, thank you. > The RPMs created are: > harbour-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-allegro-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-cairo-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-contrib-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-curl-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-firebird-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-gd-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-lib-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-mysql-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-odbc-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-pgsql-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-qt-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-static-2.0.1-devsus112.i586.rpm > harbour-lib contains the .so libraries > harbour-static contains the .a libraries To me this practice looks rather strange. Unless there is good reason to split Harbour core into main/lib/static packages, IMO they should be packaged together. I don't why it was implemented this way, and I hope someone will clarify. > It seems that some .a libraries (like hbcplr.a) are needed also for > linking the .so libraries.... I don't know if this is an Harbour > requirement or hbmk2 requirement.... hbmk2 has no extra requirements over Harbour. Its only job is to serve Harbour requirements as is. You're right that hbcplr.a may be required even when .so is used. This is normal, as the compiler (hbcplr) is licensed differently, and not part of .so. This means that to build certain tools (like hbrun, hbmk2 itself), both static and dynamic libs should be installed. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
