On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 11:25:25PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
But you don't link to the lablgtk stublib, don't you ?
Yes, I don't. But I use several #define provided in lablgtk and I have had
copied in my library a couple of static functions of lablgtk ;-(
Since the code to be
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:04:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Mmm, after a bit of testing, i see. That said, the libmlgdome.so is a
symlink to the dllmlgdome.so, and maybe it would make more sense to move
this symlink to /usr/lib/libmlgdome.so, would it not ?
It is a stublib, so
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:09:25PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:04:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Mmm, after a bit of testing, i see. That said, the libmlgdome.so is a
symlink to the dllmlgdome.so, and maybe it would make more sense to move
this
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:22:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Is this symlink (dll - lib) a hack or is it the Right Thing?
It is a hack, i think.
Basically, the ocaml runtime system will dynamically link files named
dllxxx.so. This was a name scheme chosen with upstream, and we
OTOH Remi shows that this was the only problematic example.
Well, let's consider the example of Gtk widgets: any binding to
any Gtk widget needs to depend on the lablgtk binding. So far,
we are the only one that are shipping a Gtk widget in its own
package: many other guys have contributed
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 05:14:50PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
OTOH Remi shows that this was the only problematic example.
Well, let's consider the example of Gtk widgets: any binding to
any Gtk widget needs to depend on the lablgtk binding. So far,
we are the only one that are
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 06:06:32PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
[...]
We were talking about the fact that lablgtkmathview is the only
problematic example since it is the only binding depending on
another binding. I was just saying that every Gtk widget binding
is such an example
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 04:29:15PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:22:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Is this symlink (dll - lib) a hack or is it the Right Thing?
It is a hack, i think.
Basically, the ocaml runtime system will dynamically link files named
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
Mmm you seem really knowledgeable on this issue, do you care to give us
a small explanation of what the rpath is for (in the ocaml case) or
something such, which i could then later include in the
ocaml_packaging_policy
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:27:59AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
This was for the libc migration.
AFAICT OCaml situation is very different:
* library location is not well established
Yes and no. We standardized the dll.so location in the stublibs
directory, and most of the time this is
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:11:17AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:27:59AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
This was for the libc migration.
AFAICT OCaml situation is very different:
* library location is not well established
Yes and no. We standardized the dll.so
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:27:59AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
This was for the libc migration.
AFAICT OCaml situation is very different:
* library location is not well established
Yes and no. We standardized the dll.so location in the stublibs
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:24:28AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:11:17AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:27:59AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
This was for the libc migration.
AFAICT OCaml situation is very different:
* library location
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:20:57AM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:27:59AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
This was for the libc migration.
AFAICT OCaml situation is very different:
* library location is not well established
Dear Denis,
thank you for your comments. I basically completely agree with you.
I just tried to make the issue clear: I was not proposing/criticizing
the debian solution. Anyway...
Still, let's try to execute testB: it does not work!!! The -rpath is
used only by the linker, not by the
Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:27:59AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
This was for the libc migration.
AFAICT OCaml situation is very different:
* library location is not well established
Yes and no. We standardized
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:20:57AM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote:
[...]
This in not completely true. One could want to write a binding for a
gtk widget not in lablgtk, without having to modify lablgtk, while
using some of the lablgtk function. Then it could
Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I've just look to the rpath one can found into the dll of
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/stublibs :
the directories are : /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /usr/X11R6/lib
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/stublibs. The first 3 are not useful (I think),
but the last one seem to
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
Dear Denis,
thank you for your comments. I basically completely agree with you.
I just tried to make the issue clear: I was not proposing/criticizing
the debian solution. Anyway...
Even if this was not your
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:02:45PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
But i have the feeling that that the rpath is not really there to find
the stublibs, which are found by the ocaml ld.conf file, but to find the
C
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:49:33AM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
That's right. This is a big issue. I agree with Sven that we should
ask Xavier to add a flag to avoid adding the -rpath. At the same
time (as usual), Sven is only concerned by a 100% pure-debian host.
Not so, ...
In
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
This was the exact subject of the thread in debian-devel in 1999/01.
Alexandre Oliva explicitly told he did not want to implement such a flag
in libtool, because it provides more harm than good in the general case.
Well,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:21:56PM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:20:57AM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote:
[...]
This in not completely true. One could want to write a binding for a
gtk widget not in lablgtk, without having to
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:19:10PM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote:
[...]
I've just look to the rpath one can found into the dll of
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/stublibs :
the directories are : /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /usr/X11R6/lib
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/stublibs. The first 3 are not useful (I think),
If
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:19:10PM +0200, Remi Vanicat wrote:
Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 12:27:59AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
This was for the libc migration.
AFAICT OCaml situation is very different:
*
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you provide a complete list of the files and the corresponding
rpaths ? The /usr/local/lib seems strange, and is maybe hand added by
the build process.
dllbigarray.so: no rpath or runpath tag found.
dllcamlzip.so: RPATH=/usr/lib
dllci_freetype.so:
Somebody wrote:
I've just look to the rpath one can found into the dll of
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/stublibs :
the directories are : /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /usr/X11R6/lib
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/stublibs. The first 3 are not useful (I think),
but the last one seem to be needed.
For example
And you really cannot put them in a separate C library that is common to
both stub libs ?
It would not make much sense. We are talking about a very small set
of #define and 1-line functions. Each binding should always provide
its own separate 50-lines C library. Moreover, I do not see
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
And you really cannot put them in a separate C library that is common to
both stub libs ?
It would not make much sense. We are talking about a very small set
of #define and 1-line functions. Each binding should
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:26:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Finally, maybe all this shows that there is a propper usage of rpath
finally, and that the ocaml_packaging_policy should allow rpath for
these cases, and these cases only.
I never said that rpath is evil, one must know
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 05:11:23PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:26:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Finally, maybe all this shows that there is a propper usage of rpath
finally, and that the ocaml_packaging_policy should allow rpath for
these cases, and
[As my knowledge of OCaml and rpath are very poor, I will give
my opinion about this issue ;)]
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:26:01 +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote
[...]
*** 5 ***
So far, so good. But where are the -rpath? Let's go back to the
libB directory and let's issue again the ocamlmklib
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 10:56:34PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi!
I'm just packaging planets (#187988) which is written in ML and
compiled with ocaml. The problem is that the ocaml linker uses the
rpath feature (i. e. hardcoded libary paths).
Yes, it does ...
It seems to be against Debian
Hi Ocaml maintainers!
Am 2003-04-11 11:11 +0200 schrieb Sven Luther:
It seems to be against Debian policy to use rpath; on the other hand,
the ocaml linker does not seem to allow disabling it (at least the
documentation says nothing about this issue).
Well, see the huge flamewars about
Another DD pointed me at the tool chrpath which is able to remove
the RPATH in a library. Would you recommend using that?
Absolutely not. The RPATH is required for bindings to C library that
are used (at the C level) for other bindings to other C library.
If you remove the RPATH from that
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 12:17:30PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
Another DD pointed me at the tool chrpath which is able to remove
the RPATH in a library. Would you recommend using that?
Absolutely not. The RPATH is required for bindings to C library that
are used (at the C level)
Hi Sven and all others,
Am 2003-04-11 12:27 +0200 schrieb Sven Luther:
Another DD pointed me at the tool chrpath which is able to remove
the RPATH in a library. Would you recommend using that?
... well, i don't think i would recomend it, since the ocaml situation
is a bit different from
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 01:35:10PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi Sven and all others,
Am 2003-04-11 12:27 +0200 schrieb Sven Luther:
Another DD pointed me at the tool chrpath which is able to remove
the RPATH in a library. Would you recommend using that?
... well, i don't think i
Hi Sven and all others,
Am 2003-04-11 14:50 +0200 schrieb Sven Luther:
You just need to add a lintian override, you know how to do this ?
No, I dit not, but thanks to your explanation, I do now. I installed
the override, and it works fine.
My current approach is to build a bytecode package
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 02:50:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
you need to call the bytecode version planet-byte, and have it
provide planet, and call the native code version planet. Naturally,
you have to have the two packages to conflict so they don't install
at the same time.
This seem
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 04:33:22PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 02:50:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
you need to call the bytecode version planet-byte, and have it
provide planet, and call the native code version planet. Naturally,
you have to have the two
Hi Sven and others,
Am 2003-04-11 17:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Luther:
and is not possible or good if you have C bindings included, like
the advi package does for example. The correct way is to either say
you don't care and package a -custom bytecode or a native code, both
arch: any, or
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 05:17:23PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi Sven and others,
Am 2003-04-11 17:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Luther:
and is not possible or good if you have C bindings included, like
the advi package does for example. The correct way is to either say
you don't care and
On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 05:17:23PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi Sven and others,
Am 2003-04-11 17:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Luther:
and is not possible or good if you have C bindings included, like
the advi package does for example. The correct way is to either say
you don't care and
Mmm you seem really knowledgeable on this issue, do you care to give us
a small explanation of what the rpath is for (in the ocaml case) or
something such, which i could then later include in the
ocaml_packaging_policy ?
Hhhmm. I do not _feel_ really knowledgeable on this issue at all.
45 matches
Mail list logo
