Hmm, now I'm confused. They imply that libprotobuf should be linked with
both -pthread *and* -lpthread, as the latter registers libpthread as some
sort of auto-loaded dependency, I guess. The internet does not provide very
much useful info on what the real best practice is.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 a
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 20:35, Kenton Varda wrote:
> Well, I haven't observed this problem on other platforms or distros. What
> happens if you write a very basic program that uses pthread_once, then try
> to compile it with -pthread (but not -lpthread)? If this doesn't work, I
> suspect somethi
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 20:35, Kenton Varda wrote:
> In any case, the work-around you may want is to set PTHREAD_CFLAGS='-pthread
> -lpthread' -- that is, pass both flags. Or better yet, set
> PTHREAD_CFLAGS=-pthread and PTHREAD_LIBS=-lpthread -- this way -lpthread is
> only passed while linking.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Kevin Deldycke wrote:
> BTW, should we continue packaging-related discussion of protobuf here ?
>
Please do.
> Is this issue worth a bug report ?
Well, I haven't observed this problem on other platforms or distros. What
happens if you write a very basic pro
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 02:19, Kenton Varda wrote:
> The problem with these spec files is that they're large and complicated and
> I just don't have time to learn how they work and maintain them. If someone
> would like to commit to maintaining these things -- which means I'd call on
> you to upd
The problem with these spec files is that they're large and complicated and
I just don't have time to learn how they work and maintain them. If someone
would like to commit to maintaining these things -- which means I'd call on
you to update them for each release, answer questions about them, etc.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:18, Kev wrote:
> And tonight I've managed to upgrade it, so you can find a RPM of
> Protocol Buffers 2.2.0 for Mandriva 2009.1 in my repository:
> http://kev.coolcavemen.com/static/repository/mandriva/2009.1/x86_64/
Oh, and FYI, please find attached my spec file. If you
On 17 août, 08:43, Anthony Foiani wrote:
> Fedora 11 repos have an RPM for version 2.0.1 (or so). You should be
> able to track down the spec file by finding the appropriate SRPM.
> E.g.,
>
> http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source...
+1 !
I've used this Fedora'
:05 PM, Peter Keen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone out there had built an RPM spec file for
>>> protobuf. I'll be needing to distribute the C++ runtime library to a
>>> set of machines and I'd like to be a
es.
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Peter Keen wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone out there had built an RPM spec file for
>> protobuf. I'll be needing to distribute the C++ runtime library to a
>> set of machines and I
statically link everything except basic system libraries.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Peter Keen wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I was wondering if anyone out there had built an RPM spec file for
> protobuf. I'll be needing to distribute the C++ runtime library to a
> set of mach
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/protobuf-2.0.2-8.fc11.src.rpm
HTH,
t.
On Aug 5, 4:05 pm, Peter Keen wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I was wondering if anyone out there had built an RPM spec file for
> protobuf. I'll be needing to distribute the C++ runtime library
Hi guys,
I was wondering if anyone out there had built an RPM spec file for
protobuf. I'll be needing to distribute the C++ runtime library to a
set of machines and I'd like to be able to chuck something in a shared
yum repo and be done with it, rather than having to copy around a
13 matches
Mail list logo
