Re: Imported io-lib, a Staden library
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, James Bonfield wrote:
I appreciate the problems with io_lib and the Staden Package, I really
do! It causes me no end of hassle too. Unfortunately like a lot of
things it's the usual fire-fighting scenario and never any time to
tidy up.
... the usual thing we all suffer from.
If you wish to only have one copy io_lib then that's doable. You may
wish to change the build system to use dynamic libraries instead or
just face that the build of the staden package programs will be
statically linked.
Yes, we would like to provide a library package with dynamic library
and a development package with static library and headers.
Ideally I'd like to rewrite the entire staden build system to use
something like autoconf (although maybe one of the newer alternatives
that isn't such a dogs breakfast when it comes to dynamic
libraries).
Sounds good. I did not made bad experiences with autoconf - but
any modern system might do ...
Agreed on the io_lib name too - it's pretty atrocious, but I'm
assuming the name was picked (it predates my work on it) as it was
originally just an internal part of a larger package and not
distributed separately.
I guessed that. If I would be in your shoes I would change it
rather sooner than later.
I think someone else was working on packaging up staden for a
debian-derived distribution. I'll have a dig through my mailbox to see
if I can recall who.
Well, I have mails about this in my mailbox from about one year ago.
But Debian Med is NOT a derived distro - it is just that it is a
so called "Custom Debian Distribution" which SOUNDS like it would
be something else than Debian (which it isn't). If you think of my
mails than I have just one more missinterpretation of this stupid
name in my logs. So Debian Med is pure Debian - if somebody else
was interested in Staden and has done something - we would be
interested.
Kind regards and thanks for your quick response
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: