making source compile
I'm working on packaging FPK-pascal and have run into a problem compiling the source (although it had worked a few times before). The source builds a library, libfpc.so, and uses this later to make the binaries. However, it can no longer find this library when it gets to compiling the binaries. I have the binaries that I downloaded since it's written in pascal so uses itself to compile and libfpc didn't come with it, although it's basically a library of units so it might just have the units seperately. I have tried changing options in the makefiles and none have worked so far. I have also deleted all the source and started over from the original. I've posted on the fpk mailing list and am waiting to hear from them. What I'm wondering is if it's allowable to move this lib into /usr/lib at the approriate time in the makefile so it can be found later. The install puts this there later anyway. Thanks Jef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: One source, two binary packages
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Santiago Currently, you force to have those tools installed to Santiago everybody who wants to recompile the package. Why is it a problem to require that `autoconf' and `automake' be installed? Once you install the compiler, make, and the library -dev packages, why not just install the auto* programs too, to complete the system? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lib packaging question
shaleh == shaleh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: shaleh When creating lib packages, which package should link shaleh libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib shaleh itself?? The lib itself. libfoo.so.1.2.3 libfoo.so - libfoo.so.1.2.3 libfoo.so.1 - libfoo.so.1.2.3 postinst: ldconfig postrm: ldconfig You can gather a lot of info from the files in /var/lib/dpkg/info. It's nice to have it all out in the open in a directory of files like that. No special tools (other than dired or `mc'), are required to see what other packages do and where they put files. I like to use `dired' and `igrep', in XEmacs. It's easy to answer a question by searching. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: closing old bugs
Damjan == Damjan Marion [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Damjan Can someone tell me what I must do to close old bugs, Damjan after uploading new upstream version. I am a new Damjan maintainer of that package. There's a WWW page up, if you follow the link to the bug tracking system, from the Debian GNU/Linux home pate at URL:http://www.debian.org. You can web link to the instructions and read, or find out how to have them mailed to you by the bug system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: One source, two binary packages
On 16 Apr 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Santiago Currently, you force to have those tools installed to Santiago everybody who wants to recompile the package. Why is it a problem to require that `autoconf' and `automake' be installed? Once you install the compiler, make, and the library -dev packages, why not just install the auto* programs too, to complete the system? It makes the build environment dependant on an unnecessary tool. Automake, autoconf, libtool, and gettext are all designed specifically so they aren't required to rebuild sources using them. Automake changes reasonably frequently (as does libtool) and you can't be sure to get the same version of the tool that you used. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Config file format [may] change
One of the config files for my package (I'm also the author of this) may change... I'm planing on a rewrite/ cleanup... How to I 'force' a user to install the new one, when they upgrade? I'm thinking about dpkg's 'Okay to install new version (N is usually ok)' or what ever it exactly say... -- --- Turbo ___ Debian GNU/Linux Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just ^ ___ /___(_)__ _ __ selective about who its friends are __ / __ /__ __ \ / / /_ |/_/ _ /// _ /___ / _ / / / /_/ /__ Turbo Fredriksson Tel: +46-704-697645 \\\/ /_/_/ /_/ /_/\__,_/ /_/|_| S-415 10 Göteborg[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP#788CD1A9SWEDEN www5.tripnet.se/~turbo --- PGP: B7 92 93 0E 06 94 D6 22 98 1F 0B 5B FE 33 A1 0B -- AK-47 Cocaine bomb cryptographic [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] Noriega Ft. Bragg Ortega World Trade Center munitions domestic disruption cracking Serbian nuclear counter-intelligence -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: build bug or change?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Michael Borella wrote: This worked. Great. But isn't this an ugly fix? Perhaps there is a problem with debstd. If you think it is a problem with debstd, please investigate and submit a bug against debmake. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNTdFlSqK7IlOjMLFAQEBwQP/XlCTvHCfeGfWC5tCh/PQ42AfoXN0a/FY x3n25suGv2F9wAxVsxIpGSgV4Tu2cOre/XG5eug78/8wGJpHpoNA230bhqVfh1dA SdjyfvUHa0mqSBElyZAUW2pQWskSlxdCrBDIIJDcI/0dZt8+k+t/KMV4VWlP0Y7O LG+kQW+7/fo= =KnRU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Config file format [may] change
On 17 Apr 1998 07:55:24 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Turbo One of the config files for my package (I'm also the author of Turbo this) may change... I'm planing on a rewrite/ cleanup... Turbo How to I 'force' a user to install the new one, when they Turbo upgrade? I'm thinking about dpkg's 'Okay to install new Turbo version (N is usually ok)' or what ever it exactly say... I'd check in the postinst to see whether it was upgraded, and if not upgrade it there. It should leave a config file.dpkg-dist file sitting there if they didn't upgrade. Check for that and copy it over the config file if necessary (of course make sure that any changes to config file get copied into the new file. Else why would they have not wanted config file to be overwritten). (Someone correct me if this isn't possible.) Or you can do like sysvinit and pop up a message in preinst that says something like 'If you don't allow the system to upgrade your config file things will break since the format of the config file has file changed. Please say Yes if it asks you whether to upgrade.' Dres -- @James LewisMoss [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Blessed Be! @http://www.dimensional.com/~dres | Linux is kewl! @Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours. Bach -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lib packaging question
Karl == Karl M Hegbloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: shaleh == shaleh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: shaleh When creating lib packages, which package should link shaleh libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib shaleh itself?? Karl postrm: ldconfig This is apparently wrong; `lintian' prints a W for it. Why? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lib packaging question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes: shaleh == shaleh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: shaleh When creating lib packages, which package should link shaleh libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib shaleh itself?? The lib itself. Nope. Please get the latest and greatest Packaging Manual (2.4.1.0) and read Section 12. postinst: ldconfig Nope. postrm: ldconfig Nope. It's easy to answer a question by searching. Better to answer your question by reading the manuals. I'm going to suppress my urge to give the right answers because then you might not bother actually RTM'ing. .A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://www.onShore.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lib packaging question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: postinst: ldconfig Nope. Bzzt, wrong answer, you lose, humans die. RTFM (the latest versions, still in Incoming). The packaging manual got this wrong for a long time, and the issue wasn't helped by people spreading FUD about it. -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
