On 15/09/14 00:45, Christopher Gregory wrote:
On Mon, September 15, 2014 3:34 am, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
For some reason, just came across your messages, Christopher, and
Wayne's about Seahorse.
Sorry about that.
I think that the reason is I was focused in modifying the book and this
persistent headache.
Christopher, do you want to discuss what I've done in the book today? I
could not anymore think very much about your messages (headache), but from
what I saw, I did more or less what you where suggesting.
Anyway, if you want, I will try to reply today, or, if I need to think
much, will reply tomorrow.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Hello Fernando,
There is nothing anyone can do about delays in emial being either sent or
recieved. I thought that was the case for you having not replied.
I only did a quick look through tcl so that I could offer a few
suggestions that you may not have known.
I did discover on the tcl website (at least I think it was their website)
that they stated that their build script is mearly a wrapper to call in
the bundled software. They do not modify the included packages from the
originals.
It may well be that if we do a similar thing with the other packages that
they bundle along with the seds you have modified from arch that the
warnings and hard coded links are removed.
You have done a far more extensive investigation on it than I have.
My only real question is, should the changes you have made to the sqlite
instrctions be optional?
Prior to this the bundled pakages for tcl were not. I do not know if
sqlite integration is considered mandatory for the functionality of tcl or
not. Maybe Bruce could also have some input on this as I am only trying
to come to grasps with it in my own mind.
I would much rather go with the majority on things rather than perhaps
wrongly thinking that my way of thinking is the correct one.
It is just a shame that this issue cropped up during the release cycle, as
if it is decided to go ahead and split out the other bundled packages, it
will require quite a bit more work on the tcl page.
At least we do not have to create seperate pages for them, but rather just
put additional lines of build instructions for them. My main concern with
that approach is, will it actually make the build instructions too long?
If it did make them look to long then it would be more work creating
seperate pages for the bunled packages that are not already in the book.
Regards,
Christopher.
Fernando and Christopher:
From configure.in in ./pkgs/sqlite3.8.6/configure.in :
#--------------------------------------------------------------------
# The --with-system-sqlite causes the TCL bindings to SQLite to use
# the system shared library for SQLite rather than statically linking
# against its own private copy. This is dangerous and leads to
# undersirable dependences and is not recommended.
# Patchs from rmax.
#--------------------------------------------------------------------
I note that it also sets a slightly different set of flags for sqlite:
Our flags:
-DSQLITE_ENABLE_FTS3=1 \
-DSQLITE_ENABLE_COLUMN_METADATA=1 \
-DSQLITE_ENABLE_UNLOCK_NOTIFY=1 \
-DSQLITE_SECURE_DELETE=1\""
Tcl's flags:
TEA_ADD_CFLAGS([-DSQLITE_ENABLE_FTS3=1])
TEA_ADD_CFLAGS([-DSQLITE_3_SUFFIX_ONLY=1])
TEA_ADD_CFLAGS([-DSQLITE_ENABLE_RTREE=1])
TEA_ADD_CFLAGS([-DSQLITE_OMIT_DEPRECATED=1])
So for both these reasons, it would seem sensible to go with the
standard TCL build method, and compile and link sqlite statically.
David
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
