On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 00:01 +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:38:58 +0200
> Joost van der Sluis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can't get around providing different rpm's for different
> > distributions. Large problem is offcourse building them...
> >
> > > In my opinion, when you install a library, you install everything:
> > > 1 Library
> > > 2 All needed symlinks
> > > 3 Header files needed to access the library.
> > >
> > > Most distro's split this into (1) and (2 and 3). This is OK if they
> > > supply (2 and 3) always. But SuSE does not. So they created the problem.
> > > We must hack a solution in.
> >
> >
> > > It's not RAD. A RAD like Lazarus should install on a vanilla system and
> > > simply WORK. All this splitting up is nonsense: the header files and
> > > symlinks take up very little space when compared to the libraries
> > > themselves...
> >
> > Here I aggree with you, but in the 'c-world' people thing different
> > about this.
> > So now I have a different question:
> > I'm thinking about splitting the lazarus-package up in two parts: the
> > LCL and the rest. That way I can provide a separate gtk2-lcl package.
> >
> > What do you think about this? Now the gtk1- and gtk2-compiled binaries
> > are there. But that way the lazarus package depens on both, gtk1 and
> > gtk2...
>
> The lazarus rpm only depends on gtk1 packages.
> The gtk2 lcl is only compiled ppu. The rpm does not contain any gtk2
> executable.
I meant as a build-requirement.
> > Any ideas about this?
>
> I agree, that a separate gtk2-lcl package would be better (containing the
> .ppu and the dependencies to gtk2). This package would need at least one rpm
> for redhat and one for suse.
I'll look if I can make one. Then we can look if that's better.
Joost.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
