James Tocknell writes:
> Using CMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_PATH or CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH instead of
> CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH appear to produce the same result as
> CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH with respect to RPATHs, so unless there was a bug in
> cmake, I'm not sure what I tried previously.
On 18 September 2017 at 22:41, Charles Plessy wrote:
| Hello everybody,
|
| I just wanted to relay the information that some R packages will need a
| rebuild after the next upgrade of R. (see the email forwarded below.)
Common knowledge. I referenced it half-a-dozen times in the damned thread
Uff, thanks for letting us know in advance!! I believe this means another
fresh repository in CRAN for the corresponding R release...
Johannes
Am Montag, 18. September 2017, 22:41:04 CEST schrieb Charles Plessy:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I just wanted to relay the information that some R packages
Using CMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_PATH or CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH instead of
CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH appear to produce the same result as
CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH with respect to RPATHs, so unless there was a bug in
cmake, I'm not sure what I tried previously.
James
On 18 September 2017 at 19:41, James Tocknell
Building with gbp buildpackage --git-builder='debuild -i -I -uc -us'
--git-no-pbuilder (so no cowbuilder) also produces libraries with no
RPATHs, it does however produce new lintian warnings (compared to
cowbuilder) about missing copyright entries for LICENSE, README and
config/FindMPI.cmake.
The
Hi Diane,
On Sunday, 17 September 2017 22:14:18 AEST Diane Trout wrote:
> I just did it that way because it was the least disruptive change I
> could make that would let me build and test the package.
Sure, that's entirely sensible.
> In my experience I'm much more likely to to notice a build
James Tocknell writes:
> I looked at the RPATH change, lintian doesn't show any RPATH warnings
> for me, I also ran readelf on the shared libraries, no RPATH or
> RUNPATH. I'm building via gbp and cowbuilder on amd64 (with sid as the
> target distro), could that be the
7 matches
Mail list logo