[csw-maintainers] Updated glib

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi,

Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:
> ======================================================================
> Date Submitted:             2009-05-12 15:32 CEST
> Last Modified:              2009-05-12 19:41 CEST
> ======================================================================
> Summary:                    libgdk_pixbuf.la references non- 
> existent .la files,
> breaks graphviz builds
> Description:
> Building graphviz fails with:
>
> /bin/bash ../../libtool --tag=CC   --mode=link cc  -g -version-info  
> 6:0:0
> -L/opt/csw/lib -o libgvplugin_gdk_pixbuf.la -rpath /opt/csw/lib/ 
> graphviz
> gvplugin_gdk_pixbuf.lo gvdevice_gdk_pixbuf.lo ../../lib/gvc/libgvc.la
> -L/opt/csw/lib -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -lglib-2.0
> -lintl
> grep: /opt/csw/lib/libgmodule-2.0.la: No such file or directory
>
>
>
> I believe this error is originating from:  /opt/csw/lib/ 
> libgmodule-2.0.la
> which contains a reference to this non-existent file.  (Also to ls:
> /opt/csw/lib/libgobject-2.0.la and /opt/csw/lib/libglib-2.0.la)
>
>
> A more general question is: why are .la files being installed at all  
> by
> opencsw?
> I don't understand all the rationale, but I note that Fedora does not
> install any .la files.
>
>
> ======================================================================
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (0006105) John Ellson (reporter) - 2009-05-12 16:13
> http://opencsw.org/bugtrack/view.php?id=3666#c6105
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Correction:
>
> I believe the problem originates in the installed:
> /opt/csw/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.la which references the non-existent  
> files.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (0006106) dam (reporter) - 2009-05-12 16:34
> http://opencsw.org/bugtrack/view.php?id=3666#c6106
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> .la files were included in the past, but the current policy is to  
> exclude
> them:
> <http://www.opencsw.org/standards/build>
>
> New packages should take care to EXCLUDE libtool .la files. They are  
> not
> helpful, and often create more problems than they solve.  
> Unfortunately,
> existing packages may need to preserve them, until all dependant  
> packages
> have their own configs adjusted to not use .la files.
>
> There is also a script which fixes Makefile to use linker directives
> instead of .la files. The usage in GAR is documented at
> <http://apps.sourceforge.net/trac/gar/wiki/LibTool> Please ask on
> maintainers@ for further advice if needed.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (0006107) phil (manager) - 2009-05-12 18:58
> http://opencsw.org/bugtrack/view.php?id=3666#c6107
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> this is actually a bug in gmodule.
> Please file a bug with THAT package, to repackage without .la files.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (0006108) John Ellson (reporter) - 2009-05-12 19:21
> http://opencsw.org/bugtrack/view.php?id=3666#c6108
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This may *also* be a bug with gmodule, but *this* package is  
> installing
> /opt/csw/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.la with broken references, so  
> minimally it
> needs to be repackaged without it.
>
> I'll file a bug against glib for /opt/csw/lib/libgmodule.la
>
> (I'm finding the .la files on the build8s host)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (0006109) phil (manager) - 2009-05-12 19:41
> http://opencsw.org/bugtrack/view.php?id=3666#c6109
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> since the offending package is mine, please feel free to repackage  
> and take
> over glib.

I have made an updated glib 1.2.10 package with the latest package
structure (license/, no static libs, no .la) in testing/:

  glib-1.2.10,REV=2009.05.13-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz
  glib-1.2.10,REV=2009.05.13-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz

The latest 1.x.y library, 1.3.15, builds a different shared library,
whereas all the dependent packages rely on
  /opt/csw/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0

I guess it wouldn't make sense to recompile them against a newer 1.x
version?


Best regards

  -- Dago