[Julian Foad]
> So it sounds like if we were to make the build system effectively
> require (or even automatically perform) a "make uninstall" before
> "make", that would solve it.
That's effectively what we did in the Debian packaging a long long time
ago (2005, for 1.2.0). My 1.6.x metadata sa
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 03:21:55PM +, Julian Foad wrote:
> So it sounds like if we were to make the build system effectively
> require (or even automatically perform) a "make uninstall" before
> "make", that would solve it. That's not a good solution in general
> because it's useful to be able
Philip Martin wrote:
> Julian Foad writes:
>
> > Any ideas how to fix the build system to not get confused by older
> > installed libraries existing at the path where it is configured to
> > install to?
>
> It's an old bug, and hard to solve on all the platforms libtool
> supports.
>
> Does Ubu
Julian Foad writes:
> Any ideas how to fix the build system to not get confused by older
> installed libraries existing at the path where it is configured to
> install to?
It's an old bug, and hard to solve on all the platforms libtool
supports.
Does Ubuntu use Debian's patch for reducing libto
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Stefan Sperling]
> > I'll do a build now with r901778 reverted to check.
>
> Note that one test is not conclusive. I mean, it could well be
> a platform-specific build issue. Even though we have two layers
> (gen_make, libtool) trying to shield us from platform-specific
[Stefan Sperling]
> I'll do a build now with r901778 reverted to check.
Note that one test is not conclusive. I mean, it could well be
a platform-specific build issue. Even though we have two layers
(gen_make, libtool) trying to shield us from platform-specific
build issues.
Peter
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:59:03PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I'll do a build now with r901778 reverted to check.
Builds fine here with r901778 reverted.
Stefan
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:48:55PM +, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 06:47:40PM +, Philip Martin wrote:
> > > I suppose it could be a variation of the "libtool linking against
> > > installed libraries" problem. Do you have an a pre-r899829 version
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 06:47:40PM +, Philip Martin wrote:
> > I suppose it could be a variation of the "libtool linking against
> > installed libraries" problem. Do you have an a pre-r899829 version of
> > Subversion installed in prefix? If so do you still get the pr
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 06:47:40PM +, Philip Martin wrote:
> I suppose it could be a variation of the "libtool linking against
> installed libraries" problem. Do you have an a pre-r899829 version of
> Subversion installed in prefix? If so do you still get the problem
> when you revert r901778
Julian Foad writes:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> [julianf...@apache.org]
>> > Add missing library dependencies in 'build.conf', following some recent
>> > change that made some more libsvn_client functions depend on libsvn_wc.
>> > (The error was, "undefined reference to `svn_wc__node_is_status_de
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [julianf...@apache.org]
> > Add missing library dependencies in 'build.conf', following some recent
> > change that made some more libsvn_client functions depend on libsvn_wc.
> > (The error was, "undefined reference to `svn_wc__node_is_status_deleted'".)
>
> Huh. This lo
[julianf...@apache.org]
> Add missing library dependencies in 'build.conf', following some recent
> change that made some more libsvn_client functions depend on libsvn_wc.
> (The error was, "undefined reference to `svn_wc__node_is_status_deleted'".)
Huh. This looks like a workaround to me, not a
13 matches
Mail list logo
