What else has flat_namespace in fink? I am only aware of two packages
that absolutely have to be built with flat_namespace. Openmpi and the
libXt shared lib for motif compatibility. Most everything else can be
upgraded and are producing the flat_namespace linkages on 10.10 due to
the broken configu
yeah I tried to build something with flat_namespace today just so I could see
the symbols file but the validator wouldn’t pass, I guess I could have turned
off -m though ;) I’ll try again since I just thought of that now.
---
TS
http://www.southofheaven.org/
Life begins and ends with chaos, live
Note that we are using the absence of TWOLEVEL in the otool -hv output
in Validation.pm...
if (open (OTOOL, "$otool -hv '$dylib_temp' |")) {
; ; ; #
skip first three lines
unless ( =~ /T
There are a couple of trivial tests for flat_namespace linkage.
% /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin/dyldinfo -bind
/sw/lib/openmpi/libmpi.1.dylib
bind information:
segment section addresstypeaddend dylibsymbol
__DATA __got0x001CC000point
if we upgrade to my PR I think we could use the symbols files in the dpkg info
die to find flat libs, I’m not 100% certain as I’d need an example to test, but
if flat_namespace creates a symbol it would be possible, it could even be a
trigger to process and sort all libs known to use flat_namesp
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 09:41, Alexander Hansen
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 28, 2015, at 09:36, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the code, it seem we would have to do this check in sub
>> validate_dpkg_file and use global boolean called
>> skip_flat_namespace_check or such. In validate_dpkg_fil
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 09:36, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> Looking at the code, it seem we would have to do this check in sub
> validate_dpkg_file and use global boolean called
> skip_flat_namespace_check or such. In validate_dpkg_file, regex check
> $dpkg_filename against both openmpi-shlibs_*.deb or
Looking at the code, it seem we would have to do this check in sub
validate_dpkg_file and use global boolean called
skip_flat_namespace_check or such. In validate_dpkg_file, regex check
$dpkg_filename against both openmpi-shlibs_*.deb or openmpi_*.deb. If
either match, set skip_flat_namespace_check
Since this issue is so rare (only openmpi and libXt require
flat_namepace...with the latter being an historical artifact to keep
motif working), why not check the package name as they are processed
and if it skip the flat_namespace check if the package name matches
openmpi-shlibs_*.deb or openmpi_*
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 08:41, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> Are the checks for the shlibs in Validation.pm done for the files from
> all packages at once or as sets for each package and/or its
> split-offs? If the latter, what about the idea of hard-coding a
> blacklist into Validation.pm of packages a
Are the checks for the shlibs in Validation.pm done for the files from
all packages at once or as sets for each package and/or its
split-offs? If the latter, what about the idea of hard-coding a
blacklist into Validation.pm of packages and/or split-off which should
be skipped?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:52:03 -0700, Alexander Hansen
wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 19:31, Daniel Macks wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:14:10 -0500, Hanspeter Niederstrasser
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, April 16, 2015 11:46 am, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>
> Summary: GNU libtool effectively assumed
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 19:31, Daniel Macks wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:14:10 -0500, Hanspeter Niederstrasser
> mailto:f...@snaggledworks.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, April 16, 2015 11:46 am, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>>> Summary: GNU libtool effectively assumed that there would be no 10.10, so
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:14:10 -0500, Hanspeter Niederstrasser
wrote:
> On Thu, April 16, 2015 11:46 am, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> > Summary: GNU libtool effectively assumed that there would be no 10.10, so
> > a bunch of packages inherited conditional logic that treats 10.10 like
> > 10.1. We’v
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 12:24, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> What about a fink flag that would allow certain stages of validation
> to be skipped. Something like --disable-validation= where it could be
> passed the major stages like deb, etc.
>
That functionality already exists, sort of.
-m mode is
What about a fink flag that would allow certain stages of validation
to be skipped. Something like --disable-validation= where it could be
passed the major stages like deb, etc.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser
wrote:
>
> On Thu, April 16, 2015 11:46 am, Alexander Hansen
On Thu, April 16, 2015 11:46 am, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> Summary: GNU libtool effectively assumed that there would be no 10.10, so
> a bunch of packages inherited conditional logic that treats 10.10 like
> 10.1. Weâve been patching against this, and put a .deb validator check
> for flat_name
Summary: GNU libtool effectively assumed that there would be no 10.10, so a
bunch of packages inherited conditional logic that treats 10.10 like 10.1.
We’ve been patching against this, and put a .deb validator check for
flat_namespace builds.
Problem: openmpi apparently requires flat_namespa
18 matches
Mail list logo
