On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 22:22 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Toshio wrote:
> > - If so, is this a requirement before we can place Extras packages
> > into the proper, %{_libdir}, directories?
>
> The problem is that for libraries, if something needs to link to it,
> the .pc file isn't usually found if you've installed to the default 64
> bit directory.
>
The .pc file isn't found by what? pkg-config? A configure script?
Some other program in the build process? We have to know what's making
the mistakes in order to fix it.
> > * Do all mono packages belong under %{_libdir}/mono or should there be
> > more flexibility? How much? (Allow %{_libdir}/[PKGNAME]? Allow
> > %{_datadir}/PKGNAME because upstream should know if their package is
> > truly arch independent?)
>
> should know and do know are not the same. For quite a few packages (such
> as gtk-sharp), they are already in %{_libdir}/[PKGNAME]
>
Do you mean gtk-sharp2?
Do you mean it installs a helper app into /usr/lib/[PKGNAME]?
I'm being very careful to differentiate between /usr/lib and %{_libdir}
because /usr/lib has multiple roles on x86_64 in Fedora Core. (Place for
32bit libraries. Repository for arch independent python and perl
libraries.)
> > - If we allow more flexibility (for instance, allowing nant to install
> > to %{_datadir}) how do we check that the .dlls and .exes are truly
> > platform independent?
> No idea - I would imagine in the same way as you would check something
> written in Java.
>
Java jars are bytecode. Native code is compiled into a .so. From
reading the links I posted earlier, it appears that .dlls and .exes can
contain both arch independent and platform specific code. So filename
extension is not an indicator. I haven't found any indication that
file(1) knows the difference either.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
