On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 05:45:02PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:01:12PM +0200, Devid Antonio Filoni wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:11:44PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Kelson Vibber<kelson@pobox.com> wrote:
Michal Nowak wrote:
I'd like to create Fedora RPM's (since I am Fedora packager), the problem is that fltk2 is not in Fedora (Package Review's pending [1], help welcomed), so, only unofficial packages are doable now.
Problem with Fedora 11 is that fltk2 can't be built with recent g++ [2]. I might check with with F-10, it used to work.
I've just built FLTK2 r6786 and Dillo 2.1 on a Fedora 10 system, so it does work there.
?It's ?good ?to ?see ?you're ?already ?coordinating with Kelson, because that's exactly what I was to suggest.
In http://fltk.org/str.php?L2205 I was suggested to make a code change in FLTK2, I did so and it compiles fine now. I am not sure of the root cause because fltk guys suggested that the problem is glibc-2.10 and pointed to patch but the patch looks to be incorporated in F-11 glibc.
?FLTK2 is giving some confusion even to FLTK developers: http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s6818+gfltk.development+T1 ("pre-release thread").
?In a nutshell (from my point of view):
? * fltk2 is not officially released, and maybe never will. ? * dillo2 uses fltk2, and this creates pressure to package it. ? * Distros have a policy against statically-linked binaries. ? * We can provide unofficial statically-linked packages until ? ? the distro provides a shared fltk2 lib.
?So, I'd suggest to package a statically-linked binary until the shared ?fltk2 ?is ?available from the distro. Once this happen we can provide a dynamic one.
?This ?avoids ?having to sort out the patching/adjusting problem of packaging a shared library, which is best solved by the distro itself.
?Now, ?it looks like you are the Fedora distro developer working on ?both ?fltk2 ?and ?dillo2, ?so in this case you can decide and suggest what looks best from your point of view.
?From ?a user perspective, it looks simpler to download a single binary ?and ?install it. If the shared way is decided, we need to provide nutshell directions.
?In ?the ?Debian ?case, I assume a statically linked deb will be produced (until the license problem is solved). Yes, I preparated an FLTK2 Debian package and it is built as static
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote: lib but this should be avoided if possible, the problem is that fltk2 isn't stable enough so ATM it is static... The Debian license is the issue that doesn't allow me to upload the fltk2 (and also dillo2) package in Debian, there is an open bug about this (http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2198+P0+S-2+C0+I0+E0+Qlicense).
OK.
BTW, the rc2 version of dillo-2.1 (hopefully final) was just uploaded to http://www.dillo.org/download/ so packagers can make the respective files.
The idea is to make the announcement tomorrow in the morning.
Devid: please send me the .deb and its directions when done.
Same for rpm.
Last but not the least. I use "./configure --enable-ssl" bacause that way dillo is much more useful (mainly for reading forums and bug trackers). So I'd suggest to make the packages with SSL enabled, unless somebody reembers a compelling reason not to do so. There're times when the certificate asking dialog bombs the user, but maybe not so often, or annoyingly enough, to avoid the SSL dpi. Comments? -- Cheers Jorge.-