On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 00:15:10 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:09:42AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
For libraries with versioned symbols, just checking for the needed
version nodes should be enough, and I'd say that adding symbols to
a previously existing version node
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 05:00:04AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 00:15:10 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:09:42AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
For libraries with versioned symbols, just checking for the needed
version nodes should be enough, and
Hi,
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 15:19:02 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I think my work is mostly ready for unstable as it is. The last step is to
convince Guillem Jover, the main dpkg maintainer, to merge that in the
master branch. He believes that
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 06:09:42AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 15:19:02 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I think my work is mostly ready for unstable as it is. The last step is to
convince Guillem Jover, the main dpkg maintainer, to merge that in the
master branch. He
Hi Raphael,
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 15:19:02 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I think my work is mostly ready for unstable as it is. The last step is to
convince Guillem Jover, the main dpkg maintainer, to merge that in the
master branch. He believes that supporting odd cases encourages bad
Hi,
following the last post I made changes to my dpkg branch to not include the
arch-specific symbols created by gcc on libraries in order to have as many
common symbols files as possible. See the current black list on top of
this file:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:19:02 +0200
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Everything is available in the git branch:
http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=shortlog;h=dpkg-shlibdeps-buxy
I think my work is mostly ready for unstable as it is. The last step is to
convince Guillem Jover,
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
I'd appreciate any input you can provide because dpkg-shlibdeps isn't
particularly familiar to me and I purposely left this part of
dpkg-cross until this stage of the rewrite.
I'd like to be able to not need dpkg-shlibdeps in dpkg-cross but if the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:19:02PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
2/ Second example, libconfig0 has a supplementary symbols
[...]
_PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE_ on sparc and alpha. I don't know where it comes
from.
Is this a internal symbols that I missed?
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
[snip]
2/ Second example, libconfig0 has a supplementary symbols
_PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE_ on sparc and alpha. I don't know where it comes
from.
Is this a internal symbols that I missed?
On powerpc it has _SDA_BASE_ and _SDA2_BASE_. Same question as above.
On amd64 it
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:19:02PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
5/ Fifth example, it looks like 64 bits ports tend to have differences in
common
like on libneon2.6 where various functions suffixed by 64 disappear on those
arches (ne_get_range64, ne_set_request_body_fd64,
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 20:38 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
snip
Can anyone explain me why there's randomness in symbol mangling? If I
compare
the symbols file of gnunet-qt for example I get differences like this
between
i386 and alpha:
@@ -67,10 +67,10 @@
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.7.1-1
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 15:08:16 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
Raphael - I'm in the middle of a rewrite of dpkg-cross, including the
diversion of dpkg-shlibdeps:
So far, pre1 is largely complete for dpkg-cross and the
dpkg-buildpackage diversion, barring an unknown number of possible
corner
13 matches
Mail list logo
