The Testing Area :: December Extensions



Thanks for the feedback (and thanks to everybody who helped in explaining what to do to build it...).

If you have any suggestions in what to add or change - feel free to say so.

OK, Juanito. How about adding popt development files?

Probably just copying them from my popt_dev.dsl, editing the .la libtool file, and making the library symlink would suffice.

OK - I'll have a look in a couple of days
Hi Juanito:
Just a nitpick with 'compile-3.3.5.uci' -- I think there's an unnecessary symlink:
Code Sample
/opt/compile-3.3.5/lib/libGL.so.1.2 -> /opt/compile-3.3.5/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2
Instead of the symlink, we could just move 'X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1*' over to 'lib/'.

Also, a suggestion:
Maybe we could rename 'compile-3.3.5.uci' to 'compile.uci'?
The reason is, I think '/opt/compile' is easier to type than '/opt/compile-3.3.5'.
e.g.
CPPFLAGS='-I/opt/compile-3.3.5/include'
vs
CPPFLAGS='-I/opt/compile/include'
IMO the '-3.3.5' suffix is not needed since 3.3 is the de facto version of GCC in DSL.

p.s.
I think an idealized 'compile.uci' is an improvement over a .dsl or .unc because it eliminates filesystem clutter. Also, it is self-contained, so it's much easier to tell which files belong to which extension.
So, thanks for coming up with this great idea, and for all the hard work so far.
Awww.... :)

Quote (stupid_idiot @ Jan. 23 2008,10:31)
Just a nitpick with 'compile-3.3.5.uci' -- I think there's an unnecessary symlink:
Code Sample
/opt/compile-3.3.5/lib/libGL.so.1.2 -> /opt/compile-3.3.5/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2
Instead of the symlink, we could just move 'X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1*' over to 'lib/'.

A monolithic X installation is typically contained in /usr/X11R6/ so it should be fine as it is.

Quote
IMO the '-3.3.5' suffix is not needed since 3.3 is the de facto version of GCC in DSL.
By which standard?  If you're looking at the kernel, it should also be 2.95

Maybe a script can be included in the package to set up those environmental variables?

Also, the .info file for the extension looks like it is corrupted... could be from a conversion to uniform encodings on the .info's?

Next Page...
original here.