Hello,
On Wednesday, 6. March 2002 00:41, Chris Howells wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anybody successfully got objprelink working on woody? When I try to
> compile qt-copy, make segfaults
Using sid and gcc 3.0.4 with DEBIAN_BUILDARCH=athlon, Qt (qt-copy) works fine
now with objpreli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Has anybody successfully got objprelink working on woody? When I try to
compile qt-copy, make segfaults
- --
Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk
I don't know if this is the appropiate place to discuss objprelink problems
with KDE, but if someone can help me I apreciate it a lot.
I tried to build KDE 2.2.2 from the Debian sources generating binary
packages compiled with objprelink and optimizations for 686.
I get objprelink form:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 17 January 2002 23:06, Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
> BTW this is sort of offtopic now, but what is the current state of
> the objprelink kde and qt optimizations?
Don't use objprelink, it's buggy. I'm on the KMail ma
On Monday 19 November 2001 18:00, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
> On Saturday 20 October 2001 10:54, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > If you have the time and skills it is always a good idea to compile
> > K-packages yourself. It turned out recently that adding
> > architecture specific optimization ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 20 October 2001 10:54, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> If you have the time and skills it is always a good idea to compile
> K-packages yourself. It turned out recently that adding
> architecture specific optimization makes a big performance
On Friday 19 October 2001 23:36, Philipp Siegert wrote:
> Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2001 22:59 schrieben Sie:
>
> Ivan, are your latest packages built with these binutils/glibc or do I have
> to compile them myself ?
> Chris, I think we'll skip the test with older binutils then. You don't have
> to m
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Philipp Siegert wrote:
> > and packages built with the current binutils/glibc without objprelink run
> > faster that those built with objprelink. objprelink's use is outdated
> > really.
That's good news :-) Wait until the glibc patches get
problem. Chris, could you
> > > > send me a location where to download older binutil packages ?
> > >
> > > I'll put them up somewhere. Objprelink shouldn't be used, IIRC. I'm
> > > working on getting the necessary changes done for using Jakub
ian versions. Unfortunaly I
> > > can't find any older binutils versions on the debian ftp-server and I
> > > can't verify that the binutils are the real problem. Chris, could you
> > > send me a location where to download older binutil packages ?
> >
>
ersions on the debian ftp-server and I can't
> > verify
> > that the binutils are the real problem. Chris, could you send me a location
> > where to download older binutil packages ?
>
> I'll put them up somewhere. Objprelink shouldn't be used, IIRC. I
an't verify that the binutils are the real problem. Chris, could you
> > send me a location where to download older binutil packages ?
>
> I'll put them up somewhere. Objprelink shouldn't be used, IIRC. I'm
> working on getting the necessary changes done for usin
a location
> where to download older binutil packages ?
I'll put them up somewhere. Objprelink shouldn't be used, IIRC. I'm
working on getting the necessary changes done for using Jakub Jelinek's
prelink work, though.
What version of binutils would you like and also, what architecture are
you having problems on?
C
Hi,
I tried to compile KDE 2.2.1 with the latest Debian/unstable. The kdelibs
compile without problems but the kde-config program which is located in
kdelibs/kdecore/kde-config segfaults on my two tested machines. This program
is needed for all other packages in the configure script.
I never ha
On Sunday 16 September 2001 09:15, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > With now having kde starting MUCH slower. Great work.
>
> What an asshole you are I swear. I work my ass off to provide the proper
> and most stable/secure KDE environment for Debian and you start being a
> prick. Screw you! You shou
* Maximilian Reiss [Sunday 16 September 2001 07:39 ] :
> With now having kde starting MUCH slower. Great work.
Hey man what's your problem!
I hope that it was a typo. Otherwise you are definitely an
Jerk ! The Debian packaging for KDE is the best ever
you have no idea of what's involved and
> "On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 11:57:32AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Jakub,
> >HJ told me that your work on the prelinker
> > set to eventually be adopted into Linux. I ask
> > because debian has started to use objprelink
> > for now.
>
>
gt; > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > > >
> > > > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > > > because it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check
> > > > slightly
&g
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:39:23PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > &
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:46:50PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> Is somebody up to build kde WITH objprelink from now on?
> Sadly I do not have the webspace where I could supply them
> as external apt source.
>
> I also use KDE on computers slower then 300 Mhz and would really
Please, please, read the netiquette, and stop including the whole message
when replying. My mousewheel is almost broken because of this :)
To be on-topic : I didn't noticed any difference betweeen packages created
with and without objprelink. Hmm, it is maybe my computer's fault?
--
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 13:46 schrieb Stephan Jaensch:
> On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:39, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > > >
> > > > So does this mean package maintainers should sto
On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:39, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > >
> > > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > > because it's causing policy violations? Or
Is somebody up to build kde WITH objprelink from now on?
Sadly I do not have the webspace where I could supply them
as external apt source.
I also use KDE on computers slower then 300 Mhz and would really
like to have kde start in 10 seconds on them, not 43 seconds. ;-)
Max
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> >
> > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > bec
;* Due to better sense don't use objprelink..wait for the proper
> > > prelinker stuff to show up
> > >
> > > Does this means it is compiled _without_ objprelink?
> >
> > Well I would htink that "don't use objprelink" would me don'
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
>
> So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink because
> it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check slight
On Saturday 15 September 2001 06:03 pm, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > qt-x11 (2:2.3.1-13) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> >* Due to better sense don't use objprelink..wait for the proper
>
> yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink because
it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check slightly broader
than policy and objprelink within the margin of error?
Ben.
yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:17:12PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Hi.. I'm building packages using objprelink and getting lintian errors
> similar to the following:
>
> E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code usr/lib/l
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
>
> qt-x11 (2:2.3.1-13) unstable; urgency=low
> .
>* Due to better sense don't use objprelink..wait for the proper prelinker
> stuff to show up
>
> Does this means it is compiled _without_
Hi.. I'm building packages using objprelink and getting lintian errors
similar to the following:
E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code usr/lib/libnoatunluckytag.so.0.0.0
E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code usr/lib/libnoatunmadness.so.0.0.0
E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic
qt-x11 (2:2.3.1-13) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Due to better sense don't use objprelink..wait for the proper prelinker
stuff to show up
Does this means it is compiled _without_ objprelink?
Max
Hi folks,
For those of you using objprelink in your official debian packages you need
to make sure you only require it for i386 builds. If you don't do this you
will have porters yelling at you and grumbling at me for including objprelink.
:)
Ivan
--
Ivan E. Moo
Ok folks,
I'm breaking objprelink into it's own package. I should have done
this when I first did it all but I was smoking crack or something. Anyways
As of the -12 version of the qt packages objprelink will not exist in the
libqt-dev package. I have already uploaded objprelink a
't jump around between more apps than will fit in..
> > (e.g., rendering HTML is almost as fast as Netscape, but converting XML
> > to HTML then rendering is painful because it happens at the wrong time
> > ;-).
>
> I'll see how it goes after the objprelink is activated.
On Thursday 09 August 2001 20:34, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:43:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Ratzka wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 9. August 2001 04:36 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> > > For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does
> > &
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> well, 64MB is it. Actually, my laptop with 64MB wasn't useable very
> well. (it was running ONLY KDE, before login a 'ps axuw' was 10-12
> processes, nothing big). But it started swapping at once and
> compiling something while in KDE wasn't realisti
date and info.
>
> I guess we are all interested in a speed boost. GREAT Work!! ;)
>
> > For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does this
> > mean to you? Well on average a 20%-30% increase in application start..
> > .qt will be uploaded tonight
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:43:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Ratzka wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 9. August 2001 04:36 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
>
> > For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does this
> > mean to you? Well on average a 20%-30% increase in applicatio
Am Donnerstag, 9. August 2001 04:36 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does this
> mean to you? Well on average a 20%-30% increase in application startup
> time.
Increase in startup time? I hope not :-P.
--
Wolfgang Ratzka
n the
and all the debs are ready? :-)
> I merged in some patches out of the qt-copy CVS tree. This should
> clear up some problems some of you might have had.
>
> For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does this
> mean to you? Well on average a 20%
. This reduces
the size of the source archive by 10+ megs.
I merged in some patches out of the qt-copy CVS tree. This should
clear up some problems some of you might have had.
For x86 builds we are now using the objprelink process. What does this mean
to you? Well on average a 20%-
43 matches
Mail list logo
