Hi everyone!
I'm getting this error while compiling net-snmp 5.0 (will be added when it's
fixed):
cc -dynamiclib -undefined suppress -o .libs/libnetsnmp.5.0.0.dylib
snmp_client.lo mib.lo parse.lo snmp_api.lo snmp.lo snmp_auth.lo asn1.lo
md5.lo snmp_parse_args.lo system.lo vacm.lo int64.lo read_c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hmm...I'm pretty sure you need to add -flat_namespace to the LDFLAGS...
SetLDFlags: [whatever you have here] -flat_namespace
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 07:29 AM, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm getting this error while compiling ne
You need to find where the "-undefined suppress" flag is set: often it
is buried in the configure script, sometimes it is in Makefile.in .
There are two possible replacements for this flag:
1) "-undefined error" which will let you compile with the default
-twolevel_namespace.
2) "-flat_n
I had a message from a friend of mine who was installing fink the old
fashioned way, bootstraping from source. He discovered that one of our
essential packages, debianutils, is out of date and the source is no
longer available at the Debian site. In fact, the modification dates
there indicate t
On 24/4/02 10:28 PM, "David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You need to find where the "-undefined suppress" flag is set: often it
> is buried in the configure script, sometimes it is in Makefile.in .
>
> There are two possible replacements for this flag:
> 1) "-undefined error" which
At 8:33 Uhr -0400 24.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>I had a message from a friend of mine who was installing fink the old
>fashioned way, bootstraping from source. He discovered that one of our
>essential packages, debianutils, is out of date and the source is no
>longer available at the Debi
There were some issues that made us consider getting out quickly a
0.4.0a release. Like for example:
* dangerous problem in passwd
* broken libmpeg
* broken r-base
* source bootstraping seems not possible w/o trick (trick being that
you download the debianutil source manually, and during bootst
I agree with your strategy Max: let's fix the problems and then release
0.4.1 relatively soon.
On the libmpeg problem, it looks to me like the version in unstable is OK
but the version in stable is the bad one. Has anybody tested this? We
should move the good version to stable as soon as we can
I think the only real reason there to release >0.4 is the bootstrap fail.
It's the only issue that could potentially render fink unusable for some
new users. Don't get me wrong I think the other problems should be fixed
but how does it make us look if your cmd line installer doesn't even work
an
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 10:28 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>
> * dangerous problem in passwd
> * broken libmpeg
> * broken r-base
> * source bootstraping seems not possible w/o trick (trick being
> that you download the debianutil source manually, and during
> bootstrap tell Fink in which dire
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote:
> * gdk-pixbuf doesn't build correctl the first time it's built
FYI, I was one of the people having problems with this. I went and
upgraded some other packages, then came back & it worked fine with
the 0.16.0-5 version. Not sure how it ended up resolving itse
On mercredi, avril 24, 2002, at 03:28 , Max Horn wrote:
> There were some issues that made us consider getting out quickly a
> 0.4.0a release. Like for example:
>
> * dangerous problem in passwd
> * broken libmpeg
> * broken r-base
> * source bootstraping seems not possible w/o trick (trick bein
At 11:39 Uhr -0400 24.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote:
>
>> * gdk-pixbuf doesn't build correctl the first time it's built
>
>FYI, I was one of the people having problems with this. I went and
>upgraded some other packages, then came back & it worked fine with
>th
At 19:21 Uhr +0200 24.04.2002, Martin Costabel wrote:
>On mercredi, avril 24, 2002, at 03:28 , Max Horn wrote:
>
>>There were some issues that made us consider getting out quickly a
>>0.4.0a release. Like for example:
>>
>>* dangerous problem in passwd
>>* broken libmpeg
>>* broken r-base
>>* sou
Hi,
I'm trying to package vlc (http://www.vlc.org), and here's what I get
...
cc sdl.lo.sdl vout_sdl.lo.sdl aout_sdl.lo.sdl -L/sw/lib -ObjC -lpthread
-Wall -bundle -undefined error -lcc_dynamic -shared -lSDLmain -lSDL
-framework OpenGL -framework AGL -framework IOKit -framework Carbon
the U means Undefined...you need to find the lib with the T do this
for i in /sw/lib/*; do echo "Testing $i..."; nm $i | grep _SDL_main; done
see if that helps.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> U _SDL_main
¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·.,
Justin F. Hallett - Systems Analyst
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 03:59 PM, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
> [m161:~] sylvain% nm /sw/lib/libSDLmain.a | grep _SDL_main
> U _SDL_main
Umm... Max, why isn't this a dylib?
--
Alexander Strange | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is encoded using the Rot-26 encoding method. Unaut
At 9:59 PM +0200 4/24/02, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>Hi,
>
> I'm trying to package vlc (http://www.vlc.org), and here's what I get
Valley life church online? (vlc.org?) Or you mean the "videolan client". :)
-Ben
--
http://homepage.mac.com/bhines/
__
At 17:06 Uhr -0400 24.04.2002, Alexander Strange wrote:
>On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 03:59 PM, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>> [m161:~] sylvain% nm /sw/lib/libSDLmain.a | grep _SDL_main
>> U _SDL_main
>
>Umm... Max, why isn't this a dylib?
Because it should be static linked always.
Ma
At 8:59 AM -0600 4/24/02, Justin Hallett wrote:
>I think the only real reason there to release >0.4 is the bootstrap fail.
>It's the only issue that could potentially render fink unusable for some
>new users. Don't get me wrong I think the other problems should be fixed
As opposed to the passwd
At 14:24 Uhr -0700 24.04.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
>At 8:59 AM -0600 4/24/02, Justin Hallett wrote:
>>I think the only real reason there to release >0.4 is the bootstrap fail.
>>It's the only issue that could potentially render fink unusable for some
>>new users. Don't get me wrong I think the other
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 02:26 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> At 14:24 Uhr -0700 24.04.2002, Ben Hines wrote:
>> At 8:59 AM -0600 4/24/02, Justin Hallett wrote:
>>> I think the only real reason there to release >0.4 is the bootstrap
>>> fail.
>>> It's the only issue that could potentially rende
I found something interesting here, and I wonder what it means:
/Developer/Makefiles/CoreOS/dpkg/control:
Package: coreosmakefiles
Maintainer: Darwin Developers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: Core OS Makefiles
Build-Depends: cctools, libsystem, files, zsh, gnumake, file-cmds,
shell-cmds, text-
On Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 03:17 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> I wonder if Apple is using/planning to use dpkg?
Apple uses dpkg in its (convoluted, odd, evil, etc) Darwin build system.
Only for the Darwin build system mind you, they use something even less
sane for their OS X build system AF
24 matches
Mail list logo