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

Re: RFS: poco (updated package)

2009/6/1 Krzysztof Burghardt <krzysztof@burghardt.pl>:
> 2009/5/31 Krzysztof Burghardt <krzysztof@burghardt.pl>:
>> 2009/5/27 George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>:
>>> The only thing I'm not happy with is the staticaly linked zlib with
>>> libpocofoundaton shared object and its debug variant. Can we please fix that
>>> to dynamically link with the system provided libz, or is there any reason I'm
>>> not aware of to use the zlib version provided by poco's Foundation module?
>> I will ask upstream.
> Upstream is generally against using system (3rd party) zlib:
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2799209&group_id=132964&atid=725712

I'm not a Debian Developer but I've met this one with one of my
"upstreams" as well. The reasoning is very vague. My upstream has been
keeping an ancient copy of zlib in their tree/releases just because
it's *easier* for them to build on Windows. I did the crude way simply
purged the library and tried building. It worked =D I've never playing
around with cmake (it looks like your upstream is using that) but it
should be very easy to fix if it fails to build in pbuilder cause you
will have error messages. From that point on it's detective and
efficient googling work as well as $ apt-get source
package_to_borrow_packaging_ideas_from. Good luck =D

With best regards

Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич

Reply to: