[Pkg-ace-devel] Plan for ACE+TAO upload

[Johnny Willemsen]

Hi

The gnuace mpc target has now a make install option, probably that makes packaging easier

Johnny



Op 24 jul. 2010 om 11:31 heeft Thomas Girard <thomas.g.girard at free.fr> het volgende geschreven:

> Hello,
> 
> (looking for proposed fix you mentioned last week, and replying when I
> haven't yet.)
> 
> Le 06/06/2010 19:01, Marek Brudka a écrit :
>>> I believe if an header contains a class declaration flagged with an
>>> _Export macro, then we should distribute it. Otherwise the header is
>>> not needed; since linking with this class would not be possible under
>>> Windows for instance (and I think it could also be marked as hidden
>>> with g++).
>> I cannot agree in general, that files with _Export declaration
>> specifier n  are not needed. Please consider for example a header with
>> inline functiom or templates. In particular this statement may be true
>> for ACE/TAO, but I do not dare to declare this for sure. Please, give
>> me some examples of such headers to eventually find another way to
>> discriminate between necessary and obsolete  files.
> 
> You're right: inline functions and templates are special, and they need
> to be special cased. I seem to recall there was a script doing this.
> But I don't remember where: it could be in ACE+TAO sources or in an
> previous version of Debian packages.
> 
>>> Since I'm about to move back to Paris, I would really like to upload a
>>> first experimental package this week-end. Any blocker from your point
>>> of view?
>> No, please upload packages. I think that changelog fo 5.7.7-1 is
>> currently fat enough to start the entry for 5.7.7-2 :)
>> 
>> The only problem is with Service_Configuration framework and new
>> versioning scheme. Currently, runtime packages which contains
>> libname-*.so libraries only are not sufficient to use dynamic
>> services. But if one may start using this framework by installing
>> development packages with libname.so links to libname-*.so. Maybe, we
>> should temporarily move libname.so links to runtime packages until
>> more serious patches are provided? I can commit modified install files
>> if you agree.
> 
> I'll assume this was the proposed patch. In fact there's no need for
> this as of now since patch-34 was repaired. Even if it's not the long
> term solution I prefer it over adding .so symlinks in a package whose
> name does not end in -dev. Indeed doing so means having to play with
> Replaces: for many packages to make 5.6.3 -> 5.7.7 transition possible.
> 
>> I looked at sources once again and examined DYNAMIC_SERVICE_MACRO.
>> Modification of these macros solves that problem partially, namely
>>  enables to load plugins from c++ source. However, AFAIK the main use
>> case for dynamic services is not loading them from source files, as it
>> is usualy better to just link with them, but to load/remove DLLs using
>> some external configuration files (svc.conf). The way to enable this
>> as well as ensure backward compatibility is to modify get_dll_names.
>> But as this change needs some elaboration I propose to consider it as
>> non-blocking and publish new package edition.
> 
> Ack.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-ace-devel mailing list
> Pkg-ace-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ace-devel
> 
>