Hi IOhannes,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:09:22PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please quote only relevant parts. PGP signing hints are never relevant
to quote.
On 08/20/2010 12:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I finalized the packaging and up
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Indeed this looks weird. If you consider it sane to use this approach
> then I guess it won't matter much. But striving towards the ultimate,
> if this is a dirty hack then please elaborate on possible alternative
> approaches - even if tricky to
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> We should simply suppress the sse flag on 32bit x86, in my opinion.
>
> Or if it really hurts, we should either a) offer to variants or b)
> convince upstream to implement support for both and detect at runtime if
> optimized code whould be used or
On 2010-08-23 09:25, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> anyhow, i had a look at the debian policy, and it says (in chapter 10.2
> Libraries on todays http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html):
> "If the package is architecture: any, then the
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:38:42 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-08-23 09:25, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> anyhow, i had a look at the debian policy, and it says (in chapter 10.2
>> Libraries on todays http://www.debian.org/doc/debi
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:35:24 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> We should simply suppress the sse flag on 32bit x86, in my opinion.
>>
>> Or if it really hurts, we should either a) offer to variants or b)
>> convince upstream to implement
On 2010-08-23 09:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> If they are indeed in non-standard paths such that the dynamic linker
> doesn't see it without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH or similar, then you're
> right. But..
>
>> nevertheless, it complies with it...
>
> even on amd64? There are some architectures t
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:32:55 (CEST), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-08-23 09:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>
>> If they are indeed in non-standard paths such that the dynamic linker
>> doesn't see it without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH or similar, then you're
>> right. But..
>>
>>> neverthele
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:32:55AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-23 09:58, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
If they are indeed in non-standard paths such that the dynamic linker
doesn't see it without setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH or similar, then
you're right. But..
nevertheless, it compli
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-08-22 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Indeed this looks weird. If you consider it sane to use this
approach then I guess it won't matter much. But striving towards the
ultimate, if this is a dirty hack then please e
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
> lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
>
> I actually do not think that dh_shlibdeps has any role here, just
> mention
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
> > lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
> >
> the
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:11:16PM +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
I actually do
On 27/08/10 18:18, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
>> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools lik
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 19:24 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 27/08/10 18:18, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> >> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >>
> >>
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 00:18 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> > On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of th
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >
> > Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
> > figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
> > also .pd_linux-files. But having a plain .pd-linux file in the temporary
> > d
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:35 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
> > > figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
> > > also .pd_l
On 29/08/10 17:50, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:35 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
figured out what trickery was used in
19 matches
Mail list logo
