Thanks a lot Cyril for this explanation, it makes more sense now :)
Using -Wl,--as-needed, I reduce the depends for 1 binary, but it's seems
not good for one other.
But I'll try to correct configure/Makefile directly, since I begin to
understand this strange thing that is autotools :)
--
Kind reg
On 03/02/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> Just imagine the chaos in Debian if the pkgconfig data of
> libgtk+2.0-0 was changed now. Each reverse dependency would then
> need upstream changes to add extra libs to the build that were
> previously implied. That would be just as disruptive as a full
> SONA
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 22:14 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 03/02/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > What I meant was if dependencyA appears in the dpkg-shlibdeps list
> > of "not needed" linkages for 'foo' but foo is nearly always
> > installed alongside bar which uses symbols from dependencyA (i.e
On 03/02/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> What I meant was if dependencyA appears in the dpkg-shlibdeps list
> of "not needed" linkages for 'foo' but foo is nearly always
> installed alongside bar which uses symbols from dependencyA (i.e.
> dpkg-shlibdeps doesn't complain about dependencyA in the build
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 21:21 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 03/02/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > but if that extra dependency is genuinely necessary for some other
> > application which would almost inevitably be installed alongside the
> > package in question, then no harm is done.
>
> I don'
On 03/02/2008, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Note that this might still break the build system, but that *is* a
> > good thing.
>
> (Agreed, but is probably easier to fix upstream than in Debian,
> YMMV).
Well, if you're packaging something, basic understanding on what the
code is doing, what submodule
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 20:21 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Sometimes, just deleting an -lfoo would do. But more commonly, the
> build system doesn't allow you to use fine-grained library
> dependencies. That's where LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed is your friend,
> since it tells the linker to forget abou
On 03/02/2008, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> That's something I wanted to do, but I didn't find a good way to do
> that. I tried to replace ${shlibs:Depends} with only necessary
> library, but dpkg-shlibdeps still get the same warnings.
Oh, no, you definitely don't want to touch that!
The idea is to g
On sam, 2008-02-02 at 00:10 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> It spews several pages of dpkg-shlibdeps warnings during build -- what
> about
> trimming the libs somehow?
That's something I wanted to do, but I didn't find a good way to do
that.
I tried to replace ${shlibs:Depends} with only necessary l
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +0100, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> * Package name: avant-window-navigator
It spews several pages of dpkg-shlibdeps warnings during build -- what about
trimming the libs somehow?
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
//
On ven, 2008-02-01 at 09:01 +0100, Luca Bruno wrote:
> Michael Biebl scrisse:
> Yeah, when you repackage the tarball, you should mention that in
> debian/copyright and name the tarball something like
> avant-window-navigator_0.2.1.dfsg.orig.tar.gz
Thanks Michael, I renamed it and reuploaded it to
Julien Lavergne wrote:
Hi Luca,
Thanks for the review.
* It looks like you're shipping a non DFSG-free icon,
data/avant-window-navigator.svg under CC 2.0 by-sa, as specified by
its rdf metadata. Please contact upstream and ask him to relicense it
under a free one (ie. upgrade to CC 3.0).
Hi Luca,
Thanks for the review.
> * It looks like you're shipping a non DFSG-free icon,
> data/avant-window-navigator.svg under CC 2.0 by-sa, as specified by
> its rdf metadata. Please contact upstream and ask him to relicense it
> under a free one (ie. upgrade to CC 3.0). Please mention it
Julien Lavergne scrisse:
> Dear mentors,
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "avant-window-navigator".
I did a review of your package, and spotted these issues:
* It looks like you're shipping a non DFSG-free icon,
data/avant-window-navigator.svg under CC 2.0 by-sa, as specified by
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "avant-window-navigator".
It is a dock-like navigation bar that positions itself at the bottom of
the screen. It can be used to keep track of open windows and behaves
like a normal window list.
It also take advantage of the composite desktop
Marco Rodrigues schrieb:
> Dear mentors,
There is obviously something odd here.
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "avant-window-navigator".
>
> * Package name: avant-window-navigator
> Version : 0.2-1
> Upstream Author : Julien Lavergne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Upstream is
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "avant-window-navigator".
* Package name: avant-window-navigator
Version : 0.2-1
Upstream Author : Julien Lavergne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : https://launchpad.net/avant-window-navigator
* License : GPL v
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "avant-window-navigator".
* Package name: avant-window-navigator
Version : 0.2-1
Upstream Author : Neil Jagdish Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : https://launchpad.net/avant-window-navigator
* License : GP
18 matches
Mail list logo
