On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 00:18 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
also .pd_linux-files. But having a plain .pd-linux file in the temporary
directory
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:35 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
also .pd_linux-files.
On 29/08/10 17:50, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:35 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
figured out what trickery was used in the gem package
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 19:24 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On 27/08/10 18:18, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
I actually do not think that dh_shlibdeps has any role here, just
mentioning
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
the other
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:11:16PM +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
I actually
On 27/08/10 18:18, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
lintian
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:32:55AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-23 09:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
If they are indeed in non-standard paths such that the dynamic linker
doesn't see it without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH or similar, then
you're right. But..
nevertheless, it
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Indeed this looks weird. If you consider it sane to use this
approach then I guess it won't matter much. But striving towards the
ultimate, if this is a dirty hack then please
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Indeed this looks weird. If you consider it sane to use this approach
then I guess it won't matter much. But striving towards the ultimate,
if this is a dirty hack then please elaborate on possible alternative
approaches - even if tricky to
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We should simply suppress the sse flag on 32bit x86, in my opinion.
Or if it really hurts, we should either a) offer to variants or b)
convince upstream to implement support for both and detect at runtime if
optimized code whould be used or not.
On 2010-08-23 09:25, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
anyhow, i had a look at the debian policy, and it says (in chapter 10.2
Libraries on todays http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html):
If the package is architecture: any, then the
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:35:24 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
We should simply suppress the sse flag on 32bit x86, in my opinion.
Or if it really hurts, we should either a) offer to variants or b)
convince upstream to implement support
On 2010-08-23 09:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
If they are indeed in non-standard paths such that the dynamic linker
doesn't see it without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH or similar, then you're
right. But..
nevertheless, it complies with it...
even on amd64? There are some architectures that are
16 matches
Mail list logo
