[Pkg-octave-devel] Re: Patch for using system's FTGL in OctPlot
Rafael,
Thank you for your work towards integrating octplot in Debian. Just to
make sure I have everything straight:
1) I will apply the two patches unrelated to FTGL
2) Octplot will continue to use it's "own" FTGL since the FTGL
distribution does not compile well with cygwin and it is no longer
being maintained. I am also not sure how to make it a shred library
under cygwin.
3) The copyright issue: Is there anything I can do about it?
4) A new version -- soon ... Probably before the end of March. If you
need anything faster, I could produce 0.3.1 with the above patches and
some more improvements I already have (like rudimentary legend
support).
Shai
On 1/15/06, Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org> wrote:
> * Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org> [2006-01-14 12:32]:
>
> > Do you think that you would integrate the FTGL patch (or something
> > similar) in OctPlot? If your answer is yes, do you know when the next
> > version of OctPlot will be released? I am asking these questions because
> > because if you answer "no" to any of them, we will go ahead and integrate
> > the patches in the Debian package. I would much prefer that they get
> > applied upstream, though.
>
> I experimented further with using the installed version of FTGL and
> discovered an important issue. Octave dynamically loads the module
> octplot, which is linked against FTGL. This will work only under two
> conditions: either the FTGL in the system is a shared library (which is
> not the case, because the upstream only provides static libraries) or the
> FTGL static library in the system has PIC.
>
> It happens that the Debian package ftgl-dev provides
> /usr/lib/libftgl_pic.a. I changed the Debian package to use this file
> instead. The patch that I sent to you (ftgl-use-system-library.patch) is
> pretty useless in the general case.
>
> Notice that the other two patches (drop-distclean.patch and
> octplot.figure.cpp.patch) are still usefull.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Rafael
>
Reply to: