Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: RFC/RFS: bfilter, aspell-hr, myspell-hr
- From: Vedran Furač <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:05:26 +0200
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20060530010822.GA3704@sammakko.yok.utu.fi>
- References: <email@example.com> <20060525002502.GA344@sammakko.yok.utu.fi> <447B8D4D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060530010822.GA3704@sammakko.yok.utu.fi>
Kari Pahula wrote:
> Mailed to mentors, we like to do stuff in public and I don't claim to
> be infallible, either. ;-)
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:09:49AM +0200, Vedran Fura? wrote:
>> Kari Pahula wrote:
>>> As far as the technical side of packaging goes, it seems to be mostly
>>> in a good shape. One thing you should see about is not compiling
>>> statically the included libraries (boost and libjs, at least) but
>>> using the shared libraries in Debian already. It would save space on
>>> users' systems and is a good practice securitywise.
>>> Try to make a patch to send to upstream about this change. I'm sure
>>> they wouldn't mind having optional configure switches to not build the
>>> included libraries and using the ones present on a system. It would
>>> save your workload in the long run, too.
>> I mailed him, here is his response:
>> "That can be done, and I am willing to do it if debian/ubuntu teams
>> insist on it, but this solution has its problems:
> I was thinking of a configure option to not compile the included
> libraries but to use the ones present on the system already and leave
> as the default behaviour what bfilter's build system currently does.
Upstream sent me a patch, this is fixed know (I hope).
% ldd /usr/bin/bfilter
libmozjs.so.0d => /usr/lib/libmozjs.so.0d (0xb7cf6000)
>> You mean something like this:
>> $ grep -rih copyright bfilter-1.0.2/ | sort -ufi
>> ...is the right way? Yes, quite long.
> I'd do something like this:
Done. Please check the new release.