started by: Juanito
Posted by Juanito on Jan. 25 2008,07:07Here's the compile-3.3.5 thread moved from December extensions. To summarise the points made so far?
1. Please include headers etc for popt-1.7-5 [OK will do]
2. Move all X-related files/symlinks to ../lib and get rid of ../X11R6/lib [seems reasonable to me]
3. Change gcc to gcc-2.95/add gcc-2.95 - the reason I used gcc-3.3.5 is that I was unable to compile libc6 using gcc-2.95 (version 3.x must be used). So given that I wanted to build an extension that was itself compiled using applications compiled on dsl, I was stuck. Maybe it makes sense to build a separate compile-2.95 extension for compiling kernel modules?
4. Take the symlinks out of /opt/bin - I did this to avoid having to enter a path statement each time, is the "clutter" in /opt/bin (which is removed when compile-3.3.5 is unloaded) a problem?
Did I catch everything?
Posted by stupid_idiot on Jan. 25 2008,09:37Regarding one of the above points:
3. I don't think changing to gcc-2.95 is possible because g++-2.95 cannot compile many newer packages correctly. (g++-2.95 uses libstdc++-v2 aka 'libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3', g++-3.3 uses libstdc++-v3 aka 'libstc++.so.5'.)
Regarding having another extension, 'compile-2.95.uci', I think it can be done -- but I think the name is somewhat misleading:
'compile-2.95.uci' gives one the idea that this extension is a full-featured extension just like 'compile-3.3.5.uci' (but it actually contains just the programs from gcc-2.95).
It seems that 'compile-2.95.uci' is actually the same as 'gcc-2.95.dsl', so a more accurate name might be 'gcc-2.95.uci' -- but if so, IMO there is no great need for another 'gcc-2.95' extension.
Posted by stupid_idiot on Jan. 25 2008,10:04Juanito:
I just noticed that the directory '/opt/compile-3.3.5/lib/' contains actual X11 libs. The identical shared libraries can already be found in '/usr/X11R6/lib/', so I think symlinks should be enough.
The libs in question:
libXau.a [12K] [there is '/usr/X11R6/lib/libXau.so.0']
libXaw.so.7.0 [399K] [libXaw.so.6.1 is also present here but is not in '/usr/X11R6/lib/']
Posted by Juanito on Jan. 25 2008,12:05Thanks - that was one of the things I meant to sort out at one time and then forgot. If the extension is going to mimic the base dsl then maybe it makes more sense that I move the X11 libs to ../compile-3.3.5/X11R6/lib and replace the ones duplicated in /usrX11R6/lib by symlinks as you suggest.
libGL doesn't seem to exist in the dsl base, but I guess I'll move that to ../compile-3.3.5/X11R6/lib so all the video libs are together.
Posted by stupid_idiot on Jan. 25 2008,13:25Hey Juanito:
I would suggest not to do that -- It would make things harder for the user.
I would have to add
rather than just
'/usr/X11R6/' seems to be a relic from the XFree86 days. Right now, in Debian, all X11 libs are installed in '/usr/lib/'.
While DSL itself uses the XFree86 layout, I don't think it is obligatory to mimic this in a new extension. I think ease of use should come first -- '/usr/X11R6/lib/' is acceptable because it is searched by default (as configured in '/etc/ld.so.conf'), but '/opt/compile-3.3.5/X11R6/lib/' is not searched by default, which means the user has the additional trouble of doing
From another viewpoint, the X11 libs aren't really special compared to other libs, so I don't think there is any need to separate them for the purpose of organization.
Just my '2 cents'.
Posted by Juanito on Jan. 27 2008,04:23I submitted a new version of compile-3.3.5:
1. popt-1.7-5 headers/libs added
2. X11 libs in ../lib with symlinks to /usr/X11R6/lib
3. libGL* moved to ../lib
Posted by Juanito on Feb. 10 2008,10:01I just noticed that the openssl headers got lost from compile-3.3.5 somewhere along the way, so I added them back. This latest update was submitted today.