Re: glib 1.1.12, gtk1.1.12 for debian/ppc
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 05:17:52PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, luther sven wrote:
>
> > i think in this case the correct thing to do is to fill a bug against this package, did you do it ?
> > you state there that the package don't compile, because of so and so,
> > that they should apply the appended patch. and also for such important
> > package, you are not developper and thus cannot upload the package, you
> > send a copy the problem to the debian-ppc mailing list.
>
> what do you mean fill a bug? against egcs or gtk? In the case of egcs, it
> is not a debian package's fault and the debian site is IMHO the wrong
> place to report this bug, instead it should be at cygnus. But then as I
> said it is a well known bug, so the report would be useless, and I don't
> think that we should duplicate all egcs bugs (the intrinsic ones) to the
> debian egcs package buglist -that would be useless.
> In the case of gtk/glib it is not even a bug of these packages. And I have
> never said that I had a patch for them. There was never one and no need
> for one. I said I compiled the files with no optimizations -should I state
> that I did this manually?- and then proceeded. Indeed, I suppose that
> a patch could be written so that these files get compiled with no
> optimizations, and the package be built with no problem. I really
> question that approach though, and am totally against it. A package
> should not be dealt in some special way because of a compiler
> weakness, even more so when the failing files are not really failing
> to the purposes of their existence. What is the need for a bug report?
I don't understand you, ... first you complain that the gtk package is too old,
then you say it is because of a known egcs buug, and there is no solution apart
from no compiling the test program that cause problem, and then you said it is
not the place of the debian package to deal with it. So why do you complain
then that the gtk package is too old ? Best would be to inform the list of the
problem, and complain to the egcs folk like you said.
I have tried (and succeeded) in building the glib1.1.12 packages, but i had to
manually remove the noninst_PROGRAMM line in the MAkefile.[am,in¸..] not very
easy.
Also perhaps you know why since 1.1.9 or earlier, gtk complains about undefined
target deNONE when trying to compile the po files ? I guess i have a
misconfigurated locale stuff or something like that. But then my 2.2.0-pre4
kernel died on me yesterday night in middle compile, without even any kind of
debug message and messed all my partitions, i will have to reinstall stuff
again.
>
> > if you don't tell us the problems, there is no possibility that it will be fixed ...
>
> I just did. twice. Although, I admit that I am a bit lazy when it comes to
> bug reports. Still, when I do find a bug that has to do with the package
> itself and not something else, I try to find a solution first and then
> fill a bug report. In this case I found the cause, and a solution so that
> the package could be built and working with no consequenses whatsoever of
> the bug that prevented it from working in the first place. I think that
> this is the important thing: to have working packages. Especially when
> there is nothing you and I can do, unless we try and help the folks at
> cygnus overcome the egcs bug.
I don't agree, a little patch that only compiles testglib and friends if we are
not on powerpc would be nice, Anyway, they don't get into the debian package,
so there is no need to compile them ...
>
> > sure, but as all debian developper we have a real life beside it, and i have been busy. ...
> > with the info you give to me now, i wil be able to fix it, but best would be to fill a complete
> > bug report to the package maintainer, as said above...
>
> One last note, I never meant to offend anyone, and this thing is starting
> to look like a flame war. I only tried to help, and I believe I did and
> certainly do not deserve to be treated like some newbie who's got to go
> and read the FAQ's (no offence to the newbies).
no offense taken, it is just that you have to be aware of the volunteer status
of every debian developper, and that there are only 24hours a day ...
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: