I have two patches enclosed below. One for 'ogg' and the other for 'vorbis'. Basically, I was trying to do a 'make dist' and then 'rpm -ta <filename>' to try and generate some nice RPMs for vorbis stuff. Basically in the ogg .spec file, I move the 'libogg.a' and 'libogg.so' stuff into the devel package (all other packages I've seen do this). I've also included a missing header file in a Makefile.am (without this header file libvorbis won't compile correctly). The vorbis spec file was a mess. First of all, 'make dist' misses a number of files (fixed in patch). Secondly, the libvorbis.spec wasn't very successful in working. It is fixed in this patch. I also tried working on 'ao'. Unfortunately 'ao' appears to be a "mess". It does not compile properly, I had to hack it to manually compile esd into it (otherwise I get undefined reference to ao_esd or something like that). Regards, Ali <HR NOSHADE> <UL> <LI>text/plain attachment: new_ogg.diff </UL> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: new_ogg.diff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 663 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis-dev/attachments/20001021/5cc983a9/new_ogg-0001.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: new_vorbis.diff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3341 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis-dev/attachments/20001021/5cc983a9/new_vorbis-0001.obj
Yep, i know about these. Although putting libogg.a and libogg.so in devel is not correct. You always need the libraries :) I've probably already done a good bit of this, so I will try merging your stuff in where appropriate :) jack. On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Ali Abdin wrote:> I have two patches enclosed below. One for 'ogg' and the other for 'vorbis'. > > Basically, I was trying to do a 'make dist' and then 'rpm -ta <filename>' to > try and generate some nice RPMs for vorbis stuff. > > Basically in the ogg .spec file, I move the 'libogg.a' and 'libogg.so' stuff into > the devel package (all other packages I've seen do this). I've also included a > missing header file in a Makefile.am (without this header file libvorbis won't > compile correctly). > > The vorbis spec file was a mess. First of all, 'make dist' misses a number of > files (fixed in patch). Secondly, the libvorbis.spec wasn't very successful in > working. It is fixed in this patch. > > > I also tried working on 'ao'. Unfortunately 'ao' appears to > be a "mess". It does not compile properly, I had to hack it to manually > compile esd into it (otherwise I get undefined reference to ao_esd or > something like that). > > Regards, > Ali >--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Ali Abdin wrote:> Basically in the ogg .spec file, I move the 'libogg.a' and 'libogg.so' stuff into > the devel package (all other packages I've seen do this). I've also included a > missing header file in a Makefile.am (without this header file libvorbis won't > compile correctly).I see your point about .a files. I moved those to the devel packages like you suggested. .so's stayed in the main ones.> The vorbis spec file was a mess. First of all, 'make dist' misses a number of > files (fixed in patch). Secondly, the libvorbis.spec wasn't very successful in > working. It is fixed in this patch.It was a very old one. I had rewritten it, but forgot to commit it when i initially did my built changes. You had some extra stuff I had forgotten so I merged in a lot of your patch for that.> I also tried working on 'ao'. Unfortunately 'ao' appears to > be a "mess". It does not compile properly, I had to hack it to manually > compile esd into it (otherwise I get undefined reference to ao_esd or > something like that).Yep, it's not ready for primetime yet. I need loadable pluigns at runtime for starters. jack. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Ralph Giles <giles@a3a32260.sympatico.bconnected.net> writes:> On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Michael Smith wrote: > > [-config scripts for libogg and vorbis] > > > The simple argument is that getting this information isn't actually useful > > for libogg and libvorbis. They're two libraries, dependent on nothing else > > (other than libc), and known to be dependent on nothing else. > [...] > > It's not something that really matters, so if you're really set on having > > config scripts, there's no compelling reason to remove them. I don't expect > > anyone else would ever use them, though. > > Isn't that compelling reason enough? >config scripts are intended to manage not only current dependencies but also future dependencies. If libogg or libvorbis were to gain other dependencies in the future, or be split into multiple libs, it would be helpful to app developers if they did not need to change their configure.in or equivalent at that time. - Maciej --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Jack Moffitt <jack@icecast.org> writes:> > Umm - as far as I know the libfile.so.0.0.0 (for example) goes into the > > "normal" package, while the file 'libfile.so' (or libfile.so.1) gets installed > > in the -devel package. > > > > For example look at libpng and libpng-devel, libungif and libungif-devel, > > libxml and libxml-devel, gnome-libs and gnome-libs-devel, kdelibs and > > kdelibs-devel... > > I don't like doing things for the sole reason that 8 other packages did > it that way :) > > Is there a _reason_ that .so goes in devel? I mean, it's just a symlink > to the other .so.* files...It goes in the -devel package because it's only needed at build time, not at run time. Not including the link makes it fail when you attempt to include -lwhatever on the link line, which is desirable if you don't have the headers. More importantly, this is key to let users have the non-devel packages of multiple major versions installed. If one package contains libfoo.so.3.0.0 and another contains libfoo.so.4.0.0, rpm will happily let you install both - unless they both also contain libfoo.so. Then there is a file conflict. This is probably the mail reason the .so links go in the devel package, since RPM is set up to let you have multiple library versions but not multiple -devel package versions. Also, the fact that 8 other packages did it that way _is_ a good reason. To have a sane system it's important to follow common packaging guidelines consistently.> Maybe this is a failure of mine to understand why there are three .so* > files per lib anyway. Anyone care to explain or have a url that does?The runtime dynamic linker (ld.so or ld-linux.so or whatever) needs the file names with the version numbers to find the right library to link. The static linker wants the link with only .so on the end so when you say -lfoo.so it knows what file to look at. Hope this helps. - Maciej --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.