Hi Aaron, Aaron M. Ucko, on 2024-09-04: > Unless I've missed something, there should be no need for any porting > here, just a small build system change, either to stop building > PCRE-based binaries (which weren't getting installed anyway) […]
Thanks for the ideas, I would favor that option over using
embeded copies of the pcre library.
> I've been busy with real life lately, but will upload a fix when I get a
> chance, probably over the weekend.
That would be helpful if you can have a look over the weekend.
I did give a shot to attempt not building items depending on the
pcre library (usage seems to be limited to demo items), but did
not get to a point where I could get the build to go through as
I end up with missing build artifacts. Namely, if I comment out
building demos from d/rules:
## Build demos without vibrant to avoid unnecessary dependencies;
## users who want the Vibrant UI can use vibrate(1).
# $(MAKE_IN_BUILD) -f makedemo.unx $(COMMON_FLAGS) $(USESHLIB) \
# CFLAGS1="-c $(CFLAGS)" VIBLIBS= VIBFLAG=
then I end up with the following error during the build:
make[3]: *** No rule to make target 'taxblast_main.c'. Stop.
Maybe this calls for another approach, or investigating further
whether the makefile logic could be fixed. I may investigate
further next week unless you get to resolve the problem by then.
> Sorry for the noise about slated
> autoremovals, meanwhile.
Nah, no worries, at least autoremoval notices hint how to
prioritize investigations on release critical bugs. ;)
Have a nice day, :)
--
.''`. Étienne Mollier <emoll...@debian.org>
: :' : pgp: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
`. `' sent from /dev/pts/3, please excuse my verbosity
`-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
