RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <popt-devel>

Re: [CVS] RPM: popt/ popt.pc.in

From: devzero2000 <pinto.elia@gmail.com>
Date: Wed 12 Aug 2009 - 16:47:41 CEST
Message-ID: <b086760e0908120747g6860b43fidfb1081b7d883859@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> wrote:

> On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:01 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
>> But I otherwise agree that popt.pc is more useful if -L is contained
>> within.
> This is the link https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529921
> Thanks for the link.
> The RHEL model for multilib is basically summarized as
> Libraries on separate paths, executables with identical behavior.
> Libraries on sperata paths is /lib <-> /lib64 and is mostly obvious.
> Executables (like ls(1)) with identical behavior is also pretty obvious.
> Both the 32/64 bit ls(1) can (and should)  behave identically.
> But there are "libraries" aka DSO's or loadable modules, and
> executables (like /usr/bin/*-config) that intrinsically cannot
> be made to have "identical" behavior, that don't ft into a
> RHEL multilib model.
> And yes, SuSE has its own multlib model, but the product
> that supports both 32/64 bit on the same platform isn't
> really that different from the RHEL model I just described.

Sorry if i disgress, but i want take advantage of your attention. It might
be useful to migrate the autofu popt to version 2 of autoconf / automake? It
is something I can certainly do, if you agree. I prefer to ask first.



> 73 de Jeff
Received on Wed Aug 12 16:48:00 2009
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.