On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:44:36 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> > 1. Use rpath for the local notmuch, (and use chrpath to remove it at the
> >time of "make install").
> >
> > 3. Create a static program locally, but install a shared version.
> >
> > 4.
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:24:22 +0200, martin f krafft
> wrote:
> > also sprach Michal Sojka [2010.04.01.1310 +0200]:
> > > this can be solved by the following patch, but I don't know how portable
> > > it is. You can see the efect of this by
> >
> > Please
also sprach martin f krafft [2010.04.01.1324 +0200]:
> Please avoid rpath. The better solution is probably to create
> a wrapper for notmuch, which prepends to LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
E.g. http://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue
--
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
a common mistake
also sprach Michal Sojka [2010.04.01.1310 +0200]:
> this can be solved by the following patch, but I don't know how portable
> it is. You can see the efect of this by
Please avoid rpath. The better solution is probably to create
a wrapper for notmuch, which prepends to LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
--
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
> Finally, I'm a tiny bit annoyed that now after a fresh checkout of
> notmuch and "make" that one can't easily run ./notmuch without either
> installing the library (or fiddling with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). I've got some
> ideas on how to simplify that, but I'm
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:54:16 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> Finally, I'm a tiny bit annoyed that now after a fresh checkout of
> notmuch and "make" that one can't easily run ./notmuch without either
> installing the library (or fiddling with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). I've got some
> ideas on how to simplify
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:24:22 +0200, martin f krafft
wrote:
> also sprach Michal Sojka [2010.04.01.1310 +0200]:
> > this can be solved by the following patch, but I don't know how portable
> > it is. You can see the efect of this by
>
> Please avoid rpath. The better solution is probably to
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:47:33 +0100, Ingmar Vanhassel
wrote:
> I'd very much like to see this upstream.
Me too. ;-) Sorry for the long delay.
> I amended your first patch to make it install the notmuch.h header
> too.
A very nice addition.
> The second patch fixed some parallel make issue I
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:47:33 +0100, Ingmar Vanhassel ing...@exherbo.org wrote:
I'd very much like to see this upstream.
Me too. ;-) Sorry for the long delay.
I amended your first patch to make it install the notmuch.h header
too.
A very nice addition.
The second patch fixed some parallel
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:54:16 -0700, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
Finally, I'm a tiny bit annoyed that now after a fresh checkout of
notmuch and make that one can't easily run ./notmuch without either
installing the library (or fiddling with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). I've got some
ideas on how
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
Finally, I'm a tiny bit annoyed that now after a fresh checkout of
notmuch and make that one can't easily run ./notmuch without either
installing the library (or fiddling with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). I've got some
ideas on how to simplify that, but I'm not sure
also sprach Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz [2010.04.01.1310 +0200]:
this can be solved by the following patch, but I don't know how portable
it is. You can see the efect of this by
Please avoid rpath. The better solution is probably to create
a wrapper for notmuch, which prepends to
also sprach martin f krafft madd...@madduck.net [2010.04.01.1324 +0200]:
Please avoid rpath. The better solution is probably to create
a wrapper for notmuch, which prepends to LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
E.g. http://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue
--
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
a
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:24:22 +0200, martin f krafft madd...@madduck.net wrote:
also sprach Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz [2010.04.01.1310 +0200]:
this can be solved by the following patch, but I don't know how portable
it is. You can see the efect of this by
Please avoid rpath. The
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:24:22 +0200, martin f krafft madd...@madduck.net
wrote:
also sprach Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz [2010.04.01.1310 +0200]:
this can be solved by the following patch, but I don't know how portable
it is. You can see the
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:44:36 +0200, Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Carl Worth wrote:
1. Use rpath for the local notmuch, (and use chrpath to remove it at the
time of make install).
3. Create a static program locally, but install a shared version.
4.
Hey all,
Here's a rebased version of my shared library patch. It's pretty similar to the
last version and should build against a clean tree (I'd recommend git clean
-fxd).
Let me know if you have any build issues.
In the eyes of the powers that be, what is the long-term status of this patch?
Hey all,
Here's a rebased version of my shared library patch. It's pretty similar to the
last version and should build against a clean tree (I'd recommend git clean
-fxd).
Let me know if you have any build issues.
In the eyes of the powers that be, what is the long-term status of this patch?
18 matches
Mail list logo
