On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 06:54:54AM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > > >> but that's not the problem: the problem is generically to *all* -dev > >> libraries. hmm... let me raise this somewhere on a debian list, but > >> essentially what i need to do is to create a package > >> python-hulahop-that-compiles-and-links-to-xulrunner-9 > > > > And that would have absolutely no usefulness in debian > > beh? :) > > >> why? > >> > >> because of "pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul". > >> > >> that line says it all: where does the libxul .pc file come from? > >> from the -dev package. what that *should* be is this: > >> > >> pkg-config --exact-version 9.0 --variable=sdkdir libxul > > > > like pkg-config --variable=sdkdir libxul = 9.0 ? > > tough that would break with 9.0.1. > > sorry i meant --exact-version=9.0.1 > > >> but... but... that doesn't work either, does it, because _if_ > >> xulrunner-dev is installed and it's xulrunner-10.0-dev, then we're > >> f****d, because that file libxul.pc is exclusively-named. > >> > >> > >> > The good news for you is that > >> > xulrunner 10 will stay there for a while and /might/ be what is released > >> > in wheezy. > >> > >> argh - actually that's _bad_ news, for exactly the reasons above. > >> not only can it not be compiled (against xulrunner-9) but also it's > >> xulrunner-10 which is severely borked. > >> > >> hmm... i wonder if xulrunner 11 is similarly borked? > > > > pyxpcom doesn't build with xulrunner 11. > > it doesn't? argh! the fun continues :)
Note that it doesn't build out of the box with xulrunner 10. I had to fix it in debian, and the fixes are probably not enough. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
