XFFM & XFDESKTOP never built -- the situation is unchanged

[Olivier Fourdan]

Lenny,

I might have found. Get ready for a new test :)

I'll keep you informed.

Cheers,
Olivier.

On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 22:30, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> Lenny,
> 
> I know that page and that doesn't help me much.
> 
> Now, if that comes from our Makefiles (which are automatically generated
> btw) and version numbering , then tell me why
> xfce-mcs-plugins/plugins/gtk_common compiles while xfdesktop/common
> doesn't, the Makefiles.am being totally similar ?
> 
> Moreover, xfdesktop/common is a noinst static lib, it doesn't have nor
> need any version numbering. It's just a piece of code put in a static
> lib so it can be used in different places in xfdesktop. It's not
> installed at all. It is used only during the build process.
> 
> Also, from the files you send, why using --enable-rpath while the page
> you sent clearly states that [dyld] "eliminates the need for "rpath"
> options and the ldconfig/ld.so.cache system."
> 
> I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide a fix otherwise that will stay a
> won't fix issue. And I would add that this fix has to be quick, we are
> about to start the "release candidate" cycle very soon.
> 
> Cheers,
> Olivier.
> 
> On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 16:53, lenny bruce wrote:
> > The updates to the CVS versions of XFFM and XFDESKTOP
> > produced exactly the same results I sent
> > when I tried the version Oliver Fourdan recommended.
> > I did "find differences" and the cvs build was identical
> > to the files I mailed to you in this e-mail:
> > 
> > At 2:02 AM -0700 6/29/03, lenny bruce wrote:
> > >At 8:04 PM +0200 6/28/03, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> > >>Lenny,
> > >>
> > >>Can you try these two packages:
> > >>
> > >>http://www.xfce.org/archive/xffm.tar.bz2
> > >>http://www.xfce.org/archive/xfdesktop.tar.bz2
> > >
> > >they got significantly further than the CVS versions...
> > >
> > >but no dice
> > 
> > where I attached files titled
> > 
> > "new-xfdesktop.txt.gz" and "new-xffm.txt.gz"
> > 
> > 
> > XFFM & XFDESKTOP never built -- the situation is unchanged
> > 
> > 
> > I think it's a tiny bug relating to version numbers and competing references.
> > I noticed libraries being created with 0.0.0 version numbers.
> > 
> > relevant information about Mac OS X (Darwin) library version numbers
> > can be found here at http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/porting/shared.php
> > 
> > it's some minor thing that can be added to affect Mac OS X (Darwin) only...
> > the Fink Project people do it all the time and also pass the code upstream.
-- 
Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org>
http://www.xfce.org