2009/4/7 Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi :
> Using bundled libs are not a good idea. Use bundled in case that are
> _really_ necessary.
Ok, so I added libsexy as dependence in gmpc 0.18.0-2
--
Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
I mean aufs2 works fine if unionfs patch is not included in kernel.
Otherwise it hangs the system up. I know this cause i build a kernel without
unonfs patch and aufs2 works fine.
I hope this helps.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Christopher Rogers
wrote:
> >Does that mean aufs2 itself works b
slubman wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 19:13:46 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>
>> 2009/4/7 slubman :
>>
>>> Because of:
>>>
>>> ldd $(which gmpc) | grep sexy
>>>libsexy.so.2 => /usr/lib/libsexy.so.2 (0x7fc9f1977000)
>>>
>> Do you know what are the vantages of use libsexy?
>>
>Does that mean aufs2 itself works but in combination with unionfs it is not
>working?
Aufs2 works fine if your not using unionfs. I think this cause the
fs/stack.c file was major edit with unionfs patch. Just a guess has to why
unionfs screws up aufs2.
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 19:13:46 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> 2009/4/7 slubman :
> > Because of:
> >
> > ldd $(which gmpc) | grep sexy
> >libsexy.so.2 => /usr/lib/libsexy.so.2 (0x7fc9f1977000)
>
> Do you know what are the vantages of use libsexy?
> because I built it without and it isn't r
2009/4/7 Allan McRae :
> For any dev looking to build this for the repos, it requires a libmpd update
> which has a soname bump also requiring xfce4-mpc-plugin to be rebuilt.
Thanks Allan, done
--
Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
2009/4/7 slubman :
> Because of:
>
> ldd $(which gmpc) | grep sexy
> libsexy.so.2 => /usr/lib/libsexy.so.2 (0x7fc9f1977000)
>
Do you know what are the vantages of use libsexy?
because I built it without and it isn't required:
$ ldd $(which gmpc) | grep sexy
$
--
Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 19:06:12 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> 2009/4/7 slubman :
> > Reply to self, still some issues in the previous one
>
> I changed
> make DESTDIR=$startdir/pkg install
> to
> make DESTDIR=${pkgdir} install
> and pushed libmpd 0.18.0
>
> why you put libsexy as dependence of gmp
2009/4/7 slubman :
> Reply to self, still some issues in the previous one
I changed
make DESTDIR=$startdir/pkg install
to
make DESTDIR=${pkgdir} install
and pushed libmpd 0.18.0
why you put libsexy as dependence of gmpc? I don't see it in this list[1]
[1] http://gmpc.wikia.com/wiki/Installat
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 18:57:03 slubman wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 18:48:55 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> > from your pkguild:
> >
> > mv index.php* ./${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz
> > tar xzf ${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz
> >
> > why this?!
>
> Forgot to remove this line from previous versions
2009/4/7 slubman :
> Forgot to remove this line from previous versions (where there was no direct
> URL to source tarball)
>
> Correct one attached here.
also these are useless:
cd ${startdir}/src
tar xzf ${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz
--
Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 18:48:55 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> from your pkguild:
>
> mv index.php* ./${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz
> tar xzf ${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz
>
> why this?!
Forgot to remove this line from previous versions (where there was no direct
URL to source tarball)
Correct one a
from your pkguild:
mv index.php* ./${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz
tar xzf ${pkgname}-${pkgver}.tar.gz
why this?!
--
Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
On Tuesday 07 April 2009 17:40:47 Allan McRae wrote:
> slubman wrote:
> > As stated in the thread on outdated PKGBUILD, this is an email with an
> > updated PKGBUILD for gmpc which is 2 releases behind the current one
> > available on the project site.
>
> For any dev looking to build this for the
slubman wrote:
As stated in the thread on outdated PKGBUILD, this is an email with an
updated PKGBUILD for gmpc which is 2 releases behind the current one
available on the project site.
For any dev looking to build this for the repos, it requires a libmpd
update which has a soname bump also
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi schrieb:
At least Virtualbox-2.1.4 (binary version) don't use libcap directly, it
uses setcap() from glibc. Like syslog-ng, that when compiled it looks if
the sys/capabilities.h is present.
There are a _old_ bug in old VirtualBox version that depends on libcap1.
Old == 2.
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
2009/4/6 :
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:37:14 +0200
Ondřej Kučera wrote:
Hi,
Arch's packages usually (almost always) get updated pretty fast and
the system "don't create a bug report, just flag the package
Am Dienstag 07 April 2009 schrieb Christopher Rogers:
> Aufs freezes my archiso-live build in virtualbox. I believe this bug is
> cause aufs2 only worked for me without unionfs.
>
> Sadly thats the only way i ever got aufs2 to work at all with kernel 2.6.29
> that i build.
Does that mean aufs2 itse
Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Pierre Schmitz schrieb:
>> Am Montag 06 April 2009 20:02:59 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
>>> Hi
>>> are those rebuilds ready to move?
>>> Testing is quite full of packages at the moment.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> greetings
>>> tpowa
>
> I think the virtualbox binaries use the old lib
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> 2009/4/6 :
>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:37:14 +0200
>> Ondřej Kučera wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Arch's packages usually (almost always) get updated pretty fast and
>>> the system "don't create a bug report, just flag the package out of
>>> date
As stated in the thread on outdated PKGBUILD, this is an email with an
updated PKGBUILD for gmpc which is 2 releases behind the current one
available on the project site.
--
slubman
site: http://www.slubman.info/# $Id: PKGBUILD 356 2008-04-18 22:56:27Z aaron $
# Maintainer: tobias
# Contributor
Excerpts from hollunder's message of Di Apr 07 13:35:20 +0200 2009:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:41:00 +0200
> ludovic coues wrote:
>
> > I suppose that some maintainer are not looking as often as some
> > people from the arch's
> > community want to there package.
> >
> > Couldn't be multiple maint
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:41:00 +0200
ludovic coues wrote:
> I suppose that some maintainer are not looking as often as some
> people from the arch's
> community want to there package.
>
> Couldn't be multiple maintainer for package ?
Some of us (archaudio people) wished that was possible in AUR a
I suppose that some maintainer are not looking as often as some people from
the arch's
community want to there package.
Couldn't be multiple maintainer for package ?
24 matches
Mail list logo
