On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:39:53PM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
On May 6, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
I have a package (root5) which builds many shlibs and has different
variants. Depending on the variant, some shlibs are built or not
[...]
How do I handle this situation?
ok i guess i'll just have to hold out, thanks for helping guys. let me know
if you find anything out for updated packages or a workaround. thanks again.
On 06/05/07, Alexander K. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonah Naylor wrote:
oh no really, so i still won't be able to use this... i'm so
Jonah wrote:
ok i guess i'll just have to hold out, thanks for helping guys. let me
know if you find anything out for updated packages or a workaround.
thanks again.
I can give it a look-see; I can't test on Intel but can at least try an
updated version.
On 06/05/07, * Alexander K.
Hi Dan,
On May 7, 2007, at 2:43 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:39:53PM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
On May 6, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
I have a package (root5) which builds many shlibs and has different
variants. Depending on the variant, some shlibs are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remi Mommsen wrote:
I guess this would be possible with a lot of hacking and testing
(possibly repeating each time when a new version is released). In
addition, I would need to maintain 8 different info files instead of
one. I hope we can
Benjamin Reed wrote:
[]
a) ignore private shared libs that have no public API/headers
In the case of root5, aren't all dylibs private, or is there another
package depending on one of them? I would just scrap the whole shlibs
splitoff stuff for this package. It isn't worth the hassle.
--
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 05:51:04PM -0500, Remi Mommsen wrote:
Hi Martin,
On May 7, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
Benjamin Reed wrote:
[]
a) ignore private shared libs that have no public API/headers
In the case of root5, aren't all dylibs private, or is there
another
On 08 May 2007, at 04:53, Daniel Macks wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 05:51:04PM -0500, Remi Mommsen wrote:
I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to extend the variant syntax to
the Shlibs field. Is there any show-stopper/stumbling block which I'm
not aware of?
Nope, just need to make sure
