[ Please keep the mailing list ]
On Monday 23 June 2008 03:46, Ben Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Stefan Teleman <Stefan.Teleman at sun.com>
wrote:
> > Adriaan de Groot wrote:
> > the idea that this project (KDE4 Solaris) is going to morph into a "build
> > system for every possible platform configuration" project is simply
> > orthogonal to what this project is trying to achieve. we have already
> > explained several times that this is not what we are trying to do here.
>
> so what's the target? That's what I don't get. S10U5 only? that and
> SXCE? We already have a good idea that OS200805 is going to be a little
> trying.
This suggests that we should leave osol 2008.5 be for now. If we can't build
stuff sensibly on it, then we should ignore it and focus on places where KDE
*does* build. For what it's worth, the nv70b packages that come out of dillon
work just fine on OSOL2008.5 -- as near as I can tell, at least.
> >> As for -R, you wouldn't be the first pkg-config file to start emitting
> >> -R so it seems good to me.
> >
> > we don't need this patch, we already pass -R${libdir} in $(LDFLAGS).
>
> So what are the valid platforms and OS's? I have patches for fftw and
> lame for 32-bit sse (not sse2) which probably have a month of soak
> time. And both pass either their internal check (fftw) or generate
> a valid mp3 file from a wav file.
I suppose if you've already got those patches they could go in; my main
concern is that they not destabilize the "regular" build (which for all
intents and purposes is 64-bit sse2). If we have non-stop "noise" from
updates for non-core platforms then it becomes hard to reach the goal at all.
> I have sparc S10U5 and SXCE. despite having done a svn revert --recursive,
> i"m still running into major problems on the 280R (S10U5) with things
> like Kerberos.
I've been meaning to mangle my U45 with S10U5 but haven't gotten around to it
yet. Can you post a relevant bit of the build log?
