Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-24 Thread Nick Glencross
On 12/25/05, Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guys, Sorry, it wasn't intentional that I was sending HTML emails; only just noticed. Nick

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-24 Thread Nick Glencross
Guys, On 12/24/05, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 24, 2005, at 21:07, Nick Glencross wrote: > > > ... The configuration comes when the application is additionally linked > > with null_config.o, parrot_config.o or install_config. > > This was an initial attempt that allowed

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-24 Thread Leopold Toetsch
On Dec 24, 2005, at 21:07, Nick Glencross wrote: ... The configuration comes when the application is additionally linked with null_config.o, parrot_config.o or install_config. This was an initial attempt that allowed even an installed parrot to find the runtime by linking a config file with

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-24 Thread Nick Glencross
On 12/23/05, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Below are my thoughts on this patch in it's current form. > > I don't like the function of ld_libparrot_soname because it has the > soname mixed up with the linker flags. I'd rather see something like > ld_soflags and libparrot_soname (I d

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-24 Thread Nick Glencross
On 12/23/05, Joshua Hoblitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nick, > > I'll try to take a look at all of this patch today. Quick questions - > why is: > > +src/install_config.o [main]lib > > being added to MANIFEST.generated? > > -J > > Let me explain my reasoning on this

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-23 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
Below are my thoughts on this patch in it's current form. I don't like the function of ld_libparrot_soname because it has the soname mixed up with the linker flags. I'd rather see something like ld_soflags and libparrot_soname (I don't have strong feelings about the names). Building a shared li

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-23 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
Nick, I'll try to take a look at all of this patch today. Quick questions - why is: +src/install_config.o [main]lib being added to MANIFEST.generated? -J On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 06:25:44PM +, Nick Glencross wrote: > Index: debian/libparrot.install > ===

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-23 Thread Nick Glencross
Nick Glencross wrote: Guys, Here's an updated version of the libparrot shared library patch. Sorry, omitted one of the configure files! I should mention that you probably want to remove config/inter/libparrot.pm before ever reapplying the patch otherwise you'll get the same content twice.

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-23 Thread Nick Glencross
Guys, Here's an updated version of the libparrot shared library patch. It primarily adds back the functionality for SOVERSION. To do this I have created two new compile flags which will usually be set in the platform hints. * ld_libparrot_soname: Supplied to ld to set the library version o

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-23 Thread Nick Glencross
On 12/23/05, François PERRAD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK with static on Win32 + gcc (MinGW). > > Shared on Win32, always the same linking problem with > parrot_get_config_string() > (see https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=37303) > > g++ -shared -o blib\lib\libparrot.dll ... > >

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-23 Thread François PERRAD
At 12:51 22/12/2005 +, you wrote: Guys, I'd like to revive this patch which I posted a while back, but has needed bringing up to date due to subsequent changes. It has a few key intentions: * Makes libparrot.so a 'first class citizen' * Allows the installed version of parrot and its ut

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-22 Thread Nick Glencross
On 12/22/05, Florian Ragwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 12:51:39PM +, Nick Glencross wrote: > > I'd like to revive this patch which I posted a while back, but has > > needed bringing up to date due to subsequent changes. > > Thanks for your great work, Nick! > > > I'

Re: [PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-22 Thread Florian Ragwitz
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 12:51:39PM +, Nick Glencross wrote: > I'd like to revive this patch which I posted a while back, but has > needed bringing up to date due to subsequent changes. Thanks for your great work, Nick! > I'd initially appreciate some feedback, and particularly reports of >

[PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so (revived)

2005-12-22 Thread Nick Glencross
Guys, I'd like to revive this patch which I posted a while back, but has needed bringing up to date due to subsequent changes. It has a few key intentions: * Makes libparrot.so a 'first class citizen' * Allows the installed version of parrot and its utilities to be either shared or static

[PATCH] Better support for libparrot.so

2005-10-02 Thread Nick Glencross
Guys, This preliminary patch aims to add better support for a shared libparrot library (don't apply it yet!). * First I've added config/inter/libparrot.pl to interactively prompt for whether a shared library should be built. This can be defaulted by platform hints (defaulting off for now, w