On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
[...]
> so I guess all the compilers they support also handle -o w/ -c nicely.
I see. Have you reported the static initializer thing to the libtool
maintainers?
Simon
--
GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Simon.Richter.asc
Fin
> > I don't use libtool because libtool has problems when gcc
> is used with the
> > platform's ld on Solaris for example: static initializers
> aren't called.
>
> Does the Solaris runtime linker support that?
It does for CC output, not for gcc. That's the problem. libtool should
recognize that
> There are some strange commercial compilers out there that have this
> problem. Since this is the upstream package, not the Debian one, you
> cannot assume a certain compiler. Also, two suffixes don't
> work with BSD
> make.
The library does require gmake :) I guess I could use .ao or whatever.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
[.static.o]
> Do you mean that non-gcc compilers won't obey -o at the same time as -c?
Possibly.
> I don't use libtool because libtool has problems when gcc is used with the
> platform's ld on Solaris for example: static initializers aren't called.
Does
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > .static.o is bad because it is not portable to other compilers.
> Um, what compilers do not allow the user to specify the input/output
> file name?
There are some strange commercial compilers out there that have this
problem. Since this is th
> > In any case, since I'm one of the upstream maintainers of
> the package I'm
> > packaging, I just changed it so that it will compile both
> .o and .static.o
> > w/ different flags. But I'm still interested in clarifying
> your answer.
>
> .static.o is bad because it is not portable to other
On 20001009T214211+0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> .static.o is bad because it is not portable to other compilers.
Um, what compilers do not allow the user to specify the input/output
file name?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
[Compiling a library, --enable-shared and --enable-static]
> "All libraries must have a shared version in the lib package and a static
> version in the lib-dev package. The shared version must be compiled with
> -fPIC, and the static version must not be. In
> > Any well-known trick to compile the .c twice w/o changing
> too much of the
> > original package? For example, does it make sense to
> configure in two
> > different locations, once with --enable-shared and once with
> > --enable-static, for example? Do we have an example of a
> small librar
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> Any well-known trick to compile the .c twice w/o changing too much of the
> original package? For example, does it make sense to configure in two
> different locations, once with --enable-shared and once with
> --enable-static, for example? Do we have an e
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
[...]
> so I guess all the compilers they support also handle -o w/ -c nicely.
I see. Have you reported the static initializer thing to the libtool
maintainers?
Simon
--
GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Simon.Richter.asc
Fi
> > I don't use libtool because libtool has problems when gcc
> is used with the
> > platform's ld on Solaris for example: static initializers
> aren't called.
>
> Does the Solaris runtime linker support that?
It does for CC output, not for gcc. That's the problem. libtool should
recognize tha
> There are some strange commercial compilers out there that have this
> problem. Since this is the upstream package, not the Debian one, you
> cannot assume a certain compiler. Also, two suffixes don't
> work with BSD
> make.
The library does require gmake :) I guess I could use .ao or whatever
> Alexander Kotelnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But I want to know where it is written about what should go to -dev
> >package, and what to the library one.
>
> /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch4.html#s4.3
> /usr/share/doc/packaging-manual/packaging.html/ch-sharedlibs.html
Any
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
[.static.o]
> Do you mean that non-gcc compilers won't obey -o at the same time as -c?
Possibly.
> I don't use libtool because libtool has problems when gcc is used with the
> platform's ld on Solaris for example: static initializers aren't called.
Does
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > .static.o is bad because it is not portable to other compilers.
> Um, what compilers do not allow the user to specify the input/output
> file name?
There are some strange commercial compilers out there that have this
problem. Since this is t
> > In any case, since I'm one of the upstream maintainers of
> the package I'm
> > packaging, I just changed it so that it will compile both
> .o and .static.o
> > w/ different flags. But I'm still interested in clarifying
> your answer.
>
> .static.o is bad because it is not portable to othe
On 20001009T214211+0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> .static.o is bad because it is not portable to other compilers.
Um, what compilers do not allow the user to specify the input/output
file name?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
[Compiling a library, --enable-shared and --enable-static]
> "All libraries must have a shared version in the lib package and a static
> version in the lib-dev package. The shared version must be compiled with
> -fPIC, and the static version must not be. I
> > Any well-known trick to compile the .c twice w/o changing
> too much of the
> > original package? For example, does it make sense to
> configure in two
> > different locations, once with --enable-shared and once with
> > --enable-static, for example? Do we have an example of a
> small libra
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> Any well-known trick to compile the .c twice w/o changing too much of the
> original package? For example, does it make sense to configure in two
> different locations, once with --enable-shared and once with
> --enable-static, for example? Do we have an
> Alexander Kotelnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But I want to know where it is written about what should go to -dev
> >package, and what to the library one.
>
> /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch4.html#s4.3
> /usr/share/doc/packaging-manual/packaging.html/ch-sharedlibs.html
Any
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:43:35AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Procmail sounds good, but I use procmail only on my machine, and bug reports
> end on a debian machine and I do not intend to change that (yet).
Ah, your mail to debian.org address is not forwarded all to another
address? If
Moin,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:37:02PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> > is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
> > upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
> > maintainer himse
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Christian,
> is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
> upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
> maintainer himself).
do you really want to forward all "missing build
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:02:36PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Hi,
> is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
> upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
> maintainer himself).
Use your procmail/maildrop to do it. :)
--
Hi,
is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
maintainer himself).
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Frederico S. Muñoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: Trying to begin
> On 9 Oct 2000, Frederico S. Muñoz wrote:
>
> > Having said that, I would like to know if extensive use
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:43:35AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Procmail sounds good, but I use procmail only on my machine, and bug reports
> end on a debian machine and I do not intend to change that (yet).
Ah, your mail to debian.org address is not forwarded all to another
address? I
Moin,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:37:02PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
>
> > is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
> > upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
> > maintainer hims
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Christian,
> is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
> upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
> maintainer himself).
do you really want to forward all "missing build
Alexander Kotelnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But I want to know where it is written about what should go to -dev
>package, and what to the library one.
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch4.html#s4.3
/usr/share/doc/packaging-manual/packaging.html/ch-sharedlibs.html
--
Colin Watson
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 02:02:36PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> Hi,
> is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
> upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
> maintainer himself).
Use your procmail/maildrop to do it. :)
--
Hi,
is it possible to get bugreports of a package automatically forwarded/copied
upstream? The author of one of my packages wants that (without being the
maintainer himself).
Christian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Frederico S. Muñoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: Trying to begin
> On 9 Oct 2000, Frederico S. Muñoz wrote:
>
> > Having said that, I would like to know
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 11:49:09PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
> AK> I have not packaged libraries yet, and I'm going to do. What is the
> easyest
> AK> way to start?
>
> Take a diff file from a lib package (maybe libgdk-pixbuf2) and see how this
> work.
of course I did so. But I want
Alexander Kotelnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But I want to know where it is written about what should go to -dev
>package, and what to the library one.
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch4.html#s4.3
/usr/share/doc/packaging-manual/packaging.html/ch-sharedlibs.html
--
Colin Watso
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 11:49:09PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
> AK> I have not packaged libraries yet, and I'm going to do. What is the easyest
> AK> way to start?
>
> Take a diff file from a lib package (maybe libgdk-pixbuf2) and see how this
> work.
of course I did so. But I want to
On 9 Oct 2000, Frederico S. Muñoz wrote:
> Having said that, I would like to know if extensive use of a package
> is a requirement for maintaining the deb (e.g. the gprolog maintainer
> uses gprolog extensively) or one can do a good job by mastering the
> debian packaging tools, submission proces
39 matches
Mail list logo
