On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:51 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
snip
Could anybody enlighten me what compiler options I have to give to
enable compile time and runtime correctly working. I tried
g++ ... -Lrpath /usr/lib/arb/lib ... -Lpkg-build-dir/lib
which just caused
/usr/bin/ld:
brian m. carlson sandals at crustytoothpaste.ath.cx writes:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 10:10:58PM -0500, Mohammad Derakhshani wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel at lists.debian.org
* Package name: zekr-quran-translations-ur
[...]
There is no
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:18:43AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
You should use -Wl,-rpath -Wl,/usr/lib/arb/lib instead of
-Lrpath /usr/lib/arb/lib.
Better use the shorter form -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib/arb/lib.
Bastian
--
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
--
Emdebian is the Embedded Debian Project - an official subproject of
Debian.
Emdebian now has a usable toolset [0], toolchains [1] and sufficient
test packages [2] to build a usable root filesystem [3] that is
configurable for different machines and machine variants [4]. Current
support is aimed
On a typical Gnome installation, /usr/share/locale/ can take up 250Mb
or more (those who attended the Emdebian talk at DebConf7 will have
heard how Emdebian currently handles this problem). [6] [7] [8]
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
running counter to the current Debian default of install everything
that works, every time, every package.
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
running counter to the current Debian default of install everything
that works, every time, every package.
nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
Imho this should be either nocheck or notest, supporting both is a bit
pointless. Using notest or
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
Imho this should be either
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:42:03 +0100
Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
Imho this should
2007/11/6, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely
prevent the execution of any compiled program
Hi,
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 08:42 +0900, Michal Čihař a écrit :
Hi all
how can I find what must be installed (or what I have to put in
dependencies) to have Gdk with SVG support?
It is in librsvg2-common.
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender
Zitat von Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2007/11/6, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely
prevent
Michael Banck wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
part of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for all Emdebian builds.
Imho this
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:31:49 +0100
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/11/6, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
imperative is that setting that
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2007/11/6, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must* completely
prevent the execution of any
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2007/11/6, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION
catch all kind of med on a very lesser price.
pharmstoregone.com.
Remove the dot from the end of the link to use it, thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:53:05 +0100
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:42:03PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
nocheck | notest should also be supported whether or not the package is
actually being cross-built. emdebuild currently passes 'nocheck' as
part of the
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:53:05 +0100
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wanted to get around to introduce nocheck in a couple more packages,
but maybe it's better to just settle on it now and propose it for policy
inclusion for lenny.
Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450
Neil Williams, 2007-11-06 16:08:11 + :
Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450 [PROPOSAL] New
option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
What needs to happen for that to be mandatory in Lenny?
Get the option widely used, then documented (as a MUST) in policy,
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:08:11PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:53:05 +0100
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wanted to get around to introduce nocheck in a couple more packages,
but maybe it's better to just settle on it now and propose it for policy
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] (06/11/2007):
Get the option widely used, then documented (as a MUST) in policy,
then agreed on as a release goal (or fix the bugs even if they're not
RC :-)
AFAICT, it is sufficient to convince RMs to make it an RC goal. An
explicit MUST in the Policy isn't
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:35:00 +0100
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:08:11PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450
[PROPOSAL] New option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
What needs to happen for
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Emdebian has currently built 91 Debian source packages in the
preparation of the basic root filesystem and other testing of the
toolset. All of those have involved some level of patches to support
cross-building with CDBS packages
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:47:17PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Making the last stage optional means that -nocheck achieves nothing,
IMHO. If the maintainer chooses to allow 'make check' during the build,
I believe that Policy should stipulate that the maintainer must ensure
that 'make check'
Quoting Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I am therefore seeking a second layer of repository structure that
removes all /usr/share/locale/ data from all packages in Debian,
creates language-specific packages for each individual .mo file from
each individual package and allies those to
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:18:25PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
running counter to the current Debian default of install everything
that works, every
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
This is one of the changes sought by Emdebian to support using Debian
on embedded devices where storage space is far from cheap and involves
running counter to the current Debian default of install everything
that works, every
I am sorry to bring up this issue again, but since #295527 is still
open, I think it is worth bringing attention back to it. IMHO at least
simply updated keyring would be great to have. It is pathetic to have
2005.05.28 version (especially since I am not in that one ;-) )
I am not competent
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:08:30 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Emdebian has currently built 91 Debian source packages in the
preparation of the basic root filesystem and other testing of the
toolset. All of those
Neil Williams wrote:
In this context, I believe package documentation should mean:
All files in the package that are installed beneath /usr/share/doc
which are not mandated by Policy.
Therefore, copyright and changelogs are excluded as are manpage and
info pages but README, TODO, AUTHORS
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:04:22 +0100
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I am therefore seeking a second layer of repository structure that
removes all /usr/share/locale/ data from all packages in Debian,
creates language-specific packages
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:35:41 +0100
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The most common change is simply to retrieve the cross-building
metadata from dpkg-architecture in debian/rules:
http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianGuide
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Atleast some packages now don't run the testsuite when
DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE != DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE.
Are there any other reasons why testsuites shouldn't be run?
Speed, and wanting to build a package even if its test suite is broken,
I guess.
Neil Williams wrote:
There needs
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:13:48 +0100
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:47:17PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Making the last stage optional means that -nocheck achieves nothing,
IMHO. If the maintainer chooses to allow 'make check' during the build,
I believe
Neil Williams wrote:
I propose to file bugs against packages that use inconsistent
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or which do not support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS that would
actually benefit Emdebian.
As with the other mass bug filing from this set, I will tag the reports
'crossbuilt' and file as wishlist.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:34:36PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
Neil Williams, 2007-11-06 16:08:11 + :
Actually, Guillem has already filed the bug: 416450 [PROPOSAL] New
option in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS to avoid running test-suites
What needs to happen for that to be mandatory in Lenny?
Get
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:35:41 +0100
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The most common change is simply to retrieve the cross-building
metadata from
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:07:42 -0500
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
There needs to be some agreement on what nocheck or notest means and
which one to use. For Emdebian needs, whichever name is used, the
imperative is that setting that DEB_BUILD_OPTION *must*
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 02:52:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:35:41 +0100
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:04:48PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The most common
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:25:54 -0500
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
I propose to file bugs against packages that use inconsistent
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS or which do not support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS that would
actually benefit Emdebian.
I wonder if I should spend some time
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:08:03PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
What about:
Packages that run a test suite during the default build must support
omitting the tests either upon detecting cross-compiling using
dpkg-architecture or when -nocheck is specified in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.
If a package
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:13:58PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:07:54PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
There is no need to specify --host when not cross-compiling, and
specifying
it will result in autoconf believing that the compiler should be invoked
as
a
Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
compiled binary will cause any cross build to break, even if it is a
1kb no-op.
Attempting to execute a binary not supported by the host
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And things shouldn't be must in policy unless they're intended to be RC
bugs. I don't see how this would ever make sense to be a must.
Why? Any test
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:36:31 +
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
compiled binary will cause any cross build to break, even if it is a
1kb no-op.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:08:40 +0100
Julien Cristau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2007 at 20:54:29 +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And things shouldn't be must in policy unless they're intended to be RC
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:07:54PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
There is no need to specify --host when not cross-compiling, and specifying
it will result in autoconf believing that the compiler should be invoked as
a cross-compiler. Sometimes this has strange side effects as well.
Hadn't
On Tue, Nov 6, 2007 at 20:54:29 +, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And things shouldn't be must in policy unless they're intended to be RC
bugs. I don't see how this would ever make sense to be a must.
Why? Any test
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
compiled binary will cause any cross build to break, even if it is a
1kb no-op.
Attempting to execute a binary not supported by the host will obviously
fail
* Gabor Gombas [Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:51:33 +0100]:
I wonder if this is the wrong approach. You want to add extra complexity
to _every_ package for the benefit of only a small user base. Instead,
why not patch dpkg-deb -b in Emdebian to interpret -nodoc as leave
out everything under
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:48:55PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
If you run a test you usually *want* to have it fail on build time if
the test did not go trough. Otherwise running tests is useless - or do
you check all build logs with every upload?
In the particular case I'm thinking of the
Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:48:55PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
If you run a test you usually *want* to have it fail on build time if
the test did not go trough. Otherwise running tests is useless - or do
you check all build logs with every upload?
In the particular case
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:46:52PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a single
compiled binary will cause any cross build to break,
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:36:45PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
All I want is that packages omit the test suite when cross compiling.
If that is done by detecting the cross compiler, that's OK because the
cross compiling environment sets -nocheck anyway.
To clarify, the option used to be
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:19:52AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
So there should be a way to disable them if the tests can't work in the
current build environment.
Don't get me wrong - I think the basic idea is a sensible one, it's just
the making it mandatory bit.
--
You grabbed my hand and
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:52:37 -0500
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 07:23:39PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Shouldn't packages be using these --build and --host arguments already
even if not cross-building ?
No. There is no need to specify --build and
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:54:29 +0100
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:36:45PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
All I want is that packages omit the test suite when cross compiling.
If that is done by detecting the cross compiler, that's OK because the
cross
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The most common change is simply to retrieve the cross-building
metadata from dpkg-architecture in debian/rules:
http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianGuide
DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE=$(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE)
DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE=$(shell
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 05/11/07 at 16:19 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
There isn't really any kind of official acceptation in Debian. By
asking on -devel@, you basically did everything you could, and if people
complain, you can always say see, I asked on -devel@, nobody
complained. This
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sebastien Delafond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: jruby1.1
Version : 1.1.0~beta1
Author : The JRuby Team
* URL : http://jruby.codehaus.org/
* License : tri license CPL/GPL/LGPL
Programming Lang: Ruby, Java
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 11:16:53PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:46:52PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
The size of the test suite is completely irrelevant. Executing a
Hi,
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007, Raphael Geissert wrote:
I find SOAP very complex for some queries which could be easily served in
a format like XML-RPC.
Huh?
Unless your favorite language's soap bindings are horrid, SOAP should
be fairly simple and trivial.[1] None of
Hi
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:10:18 +0100
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 08:42 +0900, Michal Čihař a écrit :
Hi all
how can I find what must be installed (or what I have to put in
dependencies) to have Gdk with SVG support?
It is in
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Raphael Geissert wrote:
The debian/watch file of your package on the unstable distribution fails to
report upstream's version.
Uscan's message follows:
uscan warning: In /tmp/wordnet_watchBHUkns,
no matching hrefs for watch line
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:40:44 -0600
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless your favorite language's soap bindings are horrid, SOAP should
be fairly simple and trivial.[1] None of the examples in
http://wiki.debian.org/DebbugsSoapInterface are very complex, which
covers 3 of the
Quoting Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
add me to the list...
Is this something best done on the debian-i18n list or continue here?
debian-i18n seems more appropriate. For instance, Eddy is subscribed
there while he is not here (I pointed him to your mail, though).
signature.asc
Que Tal!, apenas me estoy dando cuenta que existe un planeta debian en
español, pues les comento que estoy suscrito a planeta linux México. Mi
blog es www.antoniomtz.org y mi Feed
http://www.antoniomtz.org/?q=rss.xml , soy usuario de Debian y posteo
mucho sobre esta distribución, espero y me
Olvide la head-hackergotchi :P
--
José Antonio Martínez T.
http://antoniomtz.org
attachment: head-hackergotchi.png
70 matches
Mail list logo
