FAQS (Was: why does xlibs-pic exist?)
On Tue, 2001-12-25 at 23:31, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:43:18AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: THIS IS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html It seems to me that much of the frustration and spirited debate on -devel lately have been largely due to some people not reading or understanding previous mailings on the list. Seems to me we have forgotten the origins of FAQs. A document posted regularly to the list picking up the issues that recur ad nauseum. I would step forward, but I believe that we would need someone with higher technical knowledge than myself. Maybe each list should have a moderator (even if the list is not moderated) charged with the right and duty to stop flamewars without him or her being written back at. At the same time that person would take note of perennial issus and note the in the FAQ. -- Lars Bahner, http://lars.bahner.com/ Nihil est sine ratione cur potius sit, quam non sit. pgpNI3SKPmEBX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 07:47:46PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: My prophet, we are really glade to hear your non-constructive, needless and useless critism. Go away and use RedHat where you allways get working solutions, for more plattforms, better code, hotdogs falling from the sky, etc. etc. Robinsonitis seems to be a contagious disease... Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 04:08:34PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Robinsonitis seems to be a contagious disease... grr, i'm _always_ nice, and *never* rude. -john -- John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html
[OT] Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [snipped] THIS IS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ. Press the little button below tab and above left shift before sending any more messages. ;) -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche -- Paul Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]pabs on #e (OPN IRC) http://www.pablotron.org/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562 pgpyMAmu9fAuj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:02:26PM -0500, Paul Duncan wrote: * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [snipped] THIS IS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ. Press the little button below tab and above left shift before sending any more messages. ;) It might surprise you, but I have ctrl:nocaps in my XF86Config-4 file. :) I just hold down the left shift key with my pinky and pound away. -- G. Branden Robinson| When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers. pgpDMOXupiU8Z.pgp Description: PGP signature
why does xlibs-pic exist?
After a number of rants from Branden I rather confused now as to why xlibs-pic exists at all. As best as I can tell through the froth, Branden is saying that absolutely no static libs should be linked into a shared lib. The conventional wisdom on debian-powerpc seems to be that this should be extended a tad to allow for programs that will need more work upstream. So that it should be... absolutely no static libs, that have not been built with -fPIC/-fpic, will be linked into a shared lib. The only statement I can find in the debian policy simply states... All libraries must have a shared version in the lib* package and a static version in the lib*-dev package. The shared version must be compiled with -fPIC, and the static version must not be. In other words, each *.c file will need to be compiled twice. This seems to be different from what I recall from only a few weeks ago when it seemed to only say shared libs must be built with -fPIC and nothing about static not being built that way. So what is really correct? It would seem that xlibs-pic seems to only encourage breaking the current new stricter policy on shared libs not containing static libs. I am very unclear as to what is the approved fix then. If something like libsdl-image should not link any static lib (even built with -fPIC) into its shared libs, then what use is xlibs-pic at all? If we are going to enforce this darconian rule then xlibs-pic should be depreciated out of xfree86 since it can't actually be used without violating current debian policy. Nice Catch22. Jack ps I didn't realize some parts of England were only recently, and partially, civilized (grin).
Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
#include hallo.h Jack Howarth wrote on Tue Dec 25, 2001 um 11:43:18AM: After a number of rants from Branden I rather confused now as to why xlibs-pic exists at all. As best as I can tell through That is easy. You are not allowed to link static code into shared libraries on certain plattforms. So Branden did develop a working solution: - Applications link with statical xlibs code (*) - other shared libs (SDL-extensions, Allegro, Plugins) intended to use code from static xlibs can link code from the xlibs-pic package. This code is similar to the one used in static libs, but compiled dynamicaly (PIC) (*) This linking is guaranteed by the modified libsdl*debian packages. sdl-config from this packages tells to link with -lXxf86dga -lXxf86vm -lXv the froth, Branden is saying that absolutely no static libs should be linked into a shared lib. The conventional wisdom Correct. Distribution ignoring this issue cannot use SDL and some other libs on many architectures. All libraries must have a shared version in the lib* package and a static version in the lib*-dev package. The shared version must be compiled with -fPIC, and the static version must not be. In other words, each *.c file will need to be compiled twice. Don't wake up sleeping wulfes. One could say, this statements affects only shared library packages, so forget it in this case. So what is really correct? It would seem that xlibs-pic seems to only Correct is the thing, which works. With libsdl*debian and xlibs-pic we have working solutions to satisfy all we need. Do you have a better solution? No, no, no, you can only dream about one. If you want to change things extremely, convince the Xfree86 project to use proper SONAMES and stable ABI for their libs. Currently, this is not possible. encourage breaking the current new stricter policy on shared libs not containing static libs. I am very unclear as to what is the approved Policy should serve the social contract and be modified as needed. fix then. If something like libsdl-image should not link any static lib (even built with -fPIC) into its shared libs, then what use is xlibs-pic Hello? -pic is intended to provide the shared code where static X libs were used previously. at all? If we are going to enforce this darconian rule then xlibs-pic should be depreciated out of xfree86 since it can't actually be used without violating current debian policy. Nice Catch22. My prophet, we are really glade to hear your non-constructive, needless and useless critism. Go away and use RedHat where you allways get working solutions, for more plattforms, better code, hotdogs falling from the sky, etc. etc. Gruss/Regards, Eduard.
Re: why does xlibs-pic exist?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:43:18AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote: After a number of rants from Branden I rather confused now as to why xlibs-pic exists at all. THIS IS BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200111/msg00028.html -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche pgpb0hzt13iFJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
