[bt-devel] rpm creation

[Brook Humphrey]

On Sunday 20 May 2001 08:40 am, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you know we're short before the packaging of 1.0.
> Some ideas on rpm creation:
>
> 1. we will not provide binary sword rpms, source rpms are ok but not
> necessary imo
>
> 2. all binaries which do not belong to official releases go into the
> "development version" release
>
> 3. static linking
> These are thoughts which Uwe Koloska posted on sword-devel about a year
> ago. I think we should make the static compiling more automatic. As I have
> seen in the .spec file that Brook posted here, the static compiling is done
> by removing the shared libs from the linker paths (by renaming them). This
> is imo too much work. See below:

this is only a stop gap for those that don't know better. If only the 
sword-devel package is installed on the system it only contains the static 
libs and that makes the line in the spec file just precautionary. The thought 
here is to make it as easy as possible for the largest number of people. If 
they don't know anything about this then it should save them from making 
mistakes.

>
> <quote>
>    there are two possible ways for linking some specific libraries static
>    while all the others remain dynamically:
>
>    - present the full path of libLIB.a to the linker (this solution is
>      dependent to your personal system and should not be used in public
>      makefiles)
>
>    - command the linker explicit to link some libraries static:
>          g++ [...] -Wl,-Bstatic -lqt -Wl,-Bdynamic [...]
>      `-Wl,OPTION'
>      Pass OPTION as an option to the linker.  If OPTION contains
>      commas, it is split into multiple options at the commas.

I'm not sure I understand this explanation but I would be glad to implement 
it.

>                                                      [from gcc.info]
>      This one should be used for public Makefiles.
> </quote>
>
> We should consider changing our automake file system to support static
> builds. It should not be too difficult, only the final llinker command
> should need to be modified. That way we can just say
> configure --static-build

I like this idea. As of now I have to run 

make -f Makefile.cvs 
and 
./configure

on two separate trees for bibletime

and then edit the makefiles for one and then run diff

this results in the patch for making kde and qt static. This works ok but its 
allot of extra work for every build I make. I don't mind but --static-build 
would be easier.

> and the linker will use the static libs instead of the shared ones, even if
> they are available.
>
> Martin

-- 

-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-
                                       Brook Humphrey		
        Mobile PC Medic, 420 1st, Cheney, WA 99004, 509-235-9107        
  http://www.webmedic.net, bah@webmedic.net, bah@linux-mandrake.com   
-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-~`'~-
  My posting or sending this is NOT an invitation for spammers to say that
                          I've asked to be put on a mailing list.
               You are not permitted to send unsolicited bulk email 
                             (commonly referred to as spam) 
            to this address, or to sell this address to people who do. 
                      By extracting the address from this page, 
     you agree to pay a fee of $10,000.00 per UBE message you send 
              and $100,000.00 per instance you sold this address.
 
                     _______________-~-_______________
                                 Holliness unto the Lord
                       He must increase but I must decrease.
                          *****************-~-*****************