jeanm wrote:
> John Fischer wrote:
>> Jean,
>>
>> Did I address your concerns?
> Yes. Thanks for the write-up. My only concern is that it look
> unconventional from an ON standpoint. Does someone with
> more experience in the build tree structure have any issues with it?
>
Considering that this is merely a temporary home for this package until
it's moved into SFW (we do have a bug for that filed somewhere, right?),
I think its OK.
Dave
> Jean
>
>> John
>>
>> John Fischer wrote:
>>> Jean,
>>>
>>> Good question.
>>>
>>> When doing the build the install line (line 50) will install into the
>>> proto area for the 32-bit build this will include the etree.so and
>>> objectify.so libraries. This is not changed. If there were such a
>>> thing as a partial pkgmk we would be golden. But then the 64-bit build
>>> would come along and over write the same libraries for the install line
>>> (line 58) if the proto-64 directory is not used. So we would end up
>>> with a 64-bit library only within the packaging.
>>>
>>> An alternative would be to create a 64-bit directory within the
>>> proto area. Then do the build and manually copy over the appropriate
>>> libraries into the new 64-bit directory within the proto area.
>>>
>>> A 3rd alternative would be to modify the build within the lxml download
>>> to build both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions with the same build
>>> command. I thought that would be undesirable because then we
>>> would have to port the change each time we upgraded lxml.
>>>
>>> I am not married to either the first or the second method of getting
>>> the libraries into the package. I do not believe the third method
>>> should be done.
>>>
>>> Probably more then you wanted to know but...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> jeanm wrote:
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> I'm curious about the proto-64 directory. Does this currently exist?
>>>> Why did you create it and not just have the build put them into the
>>>> proto/${PROC}/usr/lib/python$(PYTHON_VERS)/site-packages/lxml/64
>>>> directory in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>> John Fischer wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Python lxml case (PSARC 2009/579) required that there be a 64-bit
>>>>> version of the shared objects. I filed defect 12535 to track this
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> webrev:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~johnfisc/lxml/
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Solaris defect:
>>>>>
>>>>> 12535 - lxml need 64-bit version of the shared objects
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix is to use the -m64 option for the C compiler within the
>>>>> Makefile. The one odd thing about the make is that repeated builds
>>>>> would not complete cleanly because of remaining .so files so I had to
>>>>> add some code to clean things up within the Makefile. The other part
>>>>> of the fix is an update to the appropriate prototype files to build
>>>>> the resulting package.
>>>>>
>>>>> When someone has a chance I would appreciate a review.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
