Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > V.ANaclav OvsNmk wrote: >> Dear mentors, >> >> I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.2-1 >> of my package "ustr". > > I neither checked your package very carefully, nor am I a DD - but here > are my comments:
Well I'm not trying to package it, just the upstream, but these look like upstream issues so... > - read http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-libraries > again. On the first look it seems the library is not being build with > -fPIC everywhere, also the static library (which is part of the -dev > package) is using -fPIC on some places. You need to clean up after > building the shared lib and build the static one (or the other way round...) Hmm, I doubt Vaclav changed the Makefile and I'm pretty sure that isn't the case in the upstream Makefile. Note that it builds 4 versions of each file by default that look like: *-so-dbg.o *-so-opt.o *-a-dbg.o *-a-opt.o ...the first two are put into the shared libraries (and all should be compiled with -FPIC), and the later two the static libraries. If the debian build also does the make check phase, it'll also be compiling a bunch of stuff like tst_*.o ... which are test cases that link against the library, and so don't have -fPIC. > Also the following warning appears pretty often: > ustr-main.h:859: warning: .FN!map_big_pow2N" is static but declared in > inline function .FN!ustr_xi__pow2N" which is not static > ustr-main.h:860: warning: .FN!map_pow2N" is static but declared in inline > function .FN!ustr_xi__pow2N" which is not static > ustr-main.h:863: warning: .FN!map_big_pow2N" is static but used in inline > function .FN!ustr_xi__pow2N" which is not static > ustr-main.h:865: warning: .FN!map_pow2N" is static but used in inline > function .FN!ustr_xi__pow2N" which is not static > > That sounds fixable. That code is basically: extern inline size_t ustr_xi__pow2(int use_big, unsigned char len) { static const unsigned char map_big_pow2[4] = {2, 4, 8, 16}; static const unsigned char map_pow2[4] = {0, 1, 2, 4}; ...so I'm pretty sure it's correct as is, and the version of GCC used is giving out false warnings. -- James Antill -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Please, no. Let's not pull in a dependency for something as simple as a string library." -- Kristian H.ANxgsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
