> On Jun 26, 2017, at 11:46 AM, Alexander Hansen <alexanderk.han...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 25, 2017, at 17:39, Scott Hannahs <s...@magnet.fsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> So do I need to modify the install phase to install the
>> /sw/lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib file? Should it be a hard link to the
>> libcryptopp.dylib or should that file not exist.
>>
>
> The preferred option is actually the reverse: real libcryptopp.5.dylib with
> libcryptopp.dylib as a symbolic link.
>
>> When there are two split off packages, I think I have the following
>> all packages: Install.txt License.txt Readme.txt in share/doc/libcryptopp5
>> package: cryptest.exe in /bin testdata in share/libcryptopp/ headers in
>> include/libcryptopp
>> package-shlib: lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib and libcryptopp.dylib (and maybe
>> libcryptopp.a but I think I can delete it??)
>
> Ideally, package-shlibs should only contain the shared library/libraries and
> the DocFiles you noted earlier.
>
>> package-dev: headers in include/libcryptopp
>
> If libcryptopp.dylib is a symlink as I suggested above, it needs to go here.
> This structure helps us to have multiple versions of the library available
> for builds, since by swapping the -dev package we can change what -lFOO on a
> build line really points to.
>
> Moving rather than is intentional, since you aren’t supposed to have the same
> file provided by multiple splitoffs in a package build. We’d wind up with
> files duplicated between the main package and splitoffs, or we’d have to go
> back and delete them after the fact.
>
> Make sure that you didn’t declare it in multiple Files lines, and otherwise
> check what’s actually in the directory.
I seem to still be missing something essential here. I have separated the
symbolic link to the -dev split off and renamed the package to contain the
major version number.
I can’t seem to get a match between the shilib and the file name. I have set
it up so that the symbolic link gets made and then installed by the -dev split
off. But the deb package does not pass the test. I am having a match problem
for the files: and shilibs: fields.
I have tried various different prefixes and relative and absolute paths but
still do not seem to get a clean DEB file. I have used as templates some of
the other .info files in lib. Such as canna.info and lhasa.info.
Currently I get a mismatch:
Validating .deb dir /sw/src/fink.build/root-libcryptopp5-shlibs-5.6.5-23...
Error: Name '/sw/lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib' specified in Shlibs does not match
install_name
'/sw/src/fink.build/root-libcryptopp5-5.6.5-23/sw/lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib'
Error: package contains the shared library
/sw/lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib
but the corresponding install_name and compatibility_version
%p/src/fink.build/root-libcryptopp5-5.6.5-23/sw/lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib 5.6.0
are not listed in the Shlibs field. See the packaging manual.
at the moment I have the following fields in the split off
InstallScript: make install PREFIX=%p DESTDIR=%d
SplitOff: <<
Package: %N-shlibs
DocFiles: Install.txt License.txt Readme.txt
Files: lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib
Shlibs: %p/lib/libcryptopp.5.dylib 5.6.0 %n (>= 5.6.5-5)
<<
SplitOff2: <<
Package: %N-dev
Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r)
BuildDependsOnly: true
Files: <<
include
lib/libcryptopp.dylib
lib/libcryptopp.a
<<
<<
And now I realize I am just flailing around here…. :-)
So what is the correct location for my 3 files and how do I reference them in
the two split offs for the -shlibs and -dev portions of the fink file.
The three files are in the main build directory and are
libcryptopp.5.dylib
libcryptopp.dylib (a symbolic link to the file above)
libcryptopp.a (the static version)
The root-libcryptopp5-shlibs-5.6.5-23 and root-libcryptopp5-dev-5.6.5-23
folders look like they have all the right files in the the right parts of the
sw directory.
So the Files: tag should be a relative path. The Shlibs: tag has to be an
absolute path. But… the deb file is not matching the index. I seem to just be
testing all combinations here and not hitting the right one. The examples in
the lib/*.info files all seem to use %p, but the documentation suggests to me
that %I would be the correct (or %D%P).
-Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List archive:
https://sourceforge.net/p/fink/mailman/fink-devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
