Re: glib 1.1.12, gtk1.1.12 for debian/ppc
On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > 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 feel that I have been misunderstood. I stated -rather than complained-
> that because the existing gtk was a little old -I had no problem with
> that, but some programs did- I took the liberty of creating my own, which
> I placed for public access, and offered it to be include in the official
> tree. I also said that the solution was to manually compile the offending
> files -that is different from not compiling them at all, after all they
> are test files- and then proceed with the building process. As you
i am not sure this is easily possible when doing debian packages, the packaging system, at least what i use
want to do everything, you cannot easily interrupt it, compile some stuff yourself, andthen continue.
that's why a little patch that conturns the probelm is nice, since it will permitt automatic compilation of
by the dbuild demon.
> correctly state, the best thing was to inform the list, which I believe I
> have already done, otherwise I could keep the final package for myself.
> And yes, an egcs bug should not be reported to the debian bug list, and I
> don't think I am being paranoid about this. Maybe someone else feels
> different about this?
> And in any case, complaints -which mine was not- are good when they lead
> in constructive criticism. But I have the impression that you accuse me
> of having great expectations, whilst underestimating the work that is
> needed for all this. I really apologize if I have lead you to such
> conclusions. My only intention was to help.
No sorry, my message was perhaps a bit to sharp if you feel that way, i just want to explain the things to you
the way i see it, and perhaps since you are not (yet?) a debian developper, there are some things that you
don't see the same way as us.
>
> > 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.
>
> although I presume this works ok, I am being a little sceptical about
> manually altering the Makefiles, esp. when they actually work for everyone
> including ppc, albeit minding the compiler problem.
you have to understand that the modification don't gho into the original tarball, but into the debian patch. I
had difficulties in hand buidling debian packages, so i need to modify the makefile, and launch every thing in
one smooth run. But then i have not been at this very long ...
>
> > 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.
>
> no can't say I do, I never noticed anything like that.
>
> > 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 ...
>
> I strongly disagree. A wrongly built library should show that it is so,
> by way of the test files. If they don't build ok, or don't run ok, because
> of a library error -NOT a compiler error- then we should know that, and
> save ourselves from making an incorrect library from distributing. There
> is no need for them to be included, but there is certainly a need to
> compile them. That's why they are included in the first place.
Are you aware that gtk/glib1.1 is almost not used in debian ? most packages are built against 1.06 still i
think ?
>
> > 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 ...
>
> As I said about this, I am completely in accord with that, and that's why
> I offered my help in the first place. I imagine that you agree with me
> about ending this seemingly never ending conversation, and proceeding with
> the important stuff, such as actually producing.
Ok this will be my last comment about it.
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: