[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: desire to add two virtual packages



Hi Steve,

> gawk. Since tao_idl is only going to be provided by one package, there's
> no point in creating a virtual package. 

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.  I'll make a seperate tao_idl
package.

> As far as the ACE/TAO gperf goes, I think I'd just wrap it up in the
> libTAO-dev package along with the tao_idl compiler, and stick in
> /usr/lib/tao (or some such -- don't assume that I know the correct
> location!) so that only the tao_idl compiler knows where to find it.

Alrighty, that sounds good.  Done. :)
 
> I don't see any real point in seperating out tao_idl and gperf from the
> development libraries and include files, as they are pretty much useless
> without each other.

Well, ACE's gperf can be seperated from the development libraries since it
produces portable C code that doesn't rely on ACE in any way (gperf is
linked against, however).  I did contact Doug Schmidt, the original gperf
author and ACE's gperf author, about the Cygnus maintained gperf.  He is
fairly certain that the Cygnus folks are concentrating on portability and
that there are still some bugs that the latest gperf (the once packaged
with ACE) doesn't have.  Perhaps this gperf issue should be expanded upon
at some later date.  In the mean time I will just change ACE's gperf name
to "gperf-ace."  I've already submitted patches to TAO's upstream
maintainers (Doug Schmidt, et al) that will make it easier for TAO's
default gperf program to be something other than "gperf."

Thanks,
-Ossama
______________________________________________________________________
Ossama Othman <othman@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu>
58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44  74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88  1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26


Reply to: