Hi all,
one of my packages, libopenraw, has just been uploaded to NEW. My sponsor
(lucab, thanks Luca!) noted that I should've read [1] and [2], to write proper
symbols files.
Unfortunately, I've not been able to fully understand how to implement this.
Can anyone give some help? That would be appr
David Paleino wrote:
> Hi all,
> one of my packages, libopenraw, has just been uploaded to NEW. My sponsor
> (lucab, thanks Luca!) noted that I should've read [1] and [2], to write proper
> symbols files.
> Unfortunately, I've not been able to fully understand how to implement this.
>
> Can anyon
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:40:37 -0300
Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Paleino wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > one of my packages, libopenraw, has just been uploaded to NEW. My sponsor
> > (lucab, thanks Luca!) noted that I should've read [1] and [2], to write
> > proper
> > symbols files
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not
> supported upstream via versioned symbols.
Can you please argument this?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not
> > supported upstream via versioned symbols.
>
> Can you please argument this?
(You omitted the rest
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:44:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not
> > > supported upstream via versi
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:44:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > Quick summary: IMHO, symbols files are largely irrelevant if not
> > > supported upstream via versio
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 12:50 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:44:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 09:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:56:18PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Instead, the maintainer needs to work with
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:28:46AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 12:50 +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:44:32AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Right, as you say the problems here are nothing to do with symbols
> > files or symbol versioning. A poorly
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure zlib is a good example - when I built the current sources
> (which contained the symbols file), I got a lot of lintian warnings
> about the symbols.
The zlib symbol file warnings are because the current versioning wouldn't
work well with ba
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 11:47:23AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> the symbols file. (My recommendation would be to drop the Debian revision
> on all the versions in the symbols file for zlib1g, on the grounds that
> the introduction of new symbols was an upstream change so any package of,
JFTR thi
Is there a way to do that without going insane? Some sort of wildcards
or shortcuts to the mangled symbols would be great (specially since it
seems the mangling is different on different archs).
--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
On Friday 16,October,2009 10:54 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Is there a way to do that without going insane? Some sort of wildcards
> or shortcuts to the mangled symbols would be great (specially since it
> seems the mangling is different on different archs).
>
I agree with this. Packaging sigx nea
13 matches
Mail list logo
