Patrick, From what you sent me it looks like the problem with the binary RPM is over new libpng and glibc versions. Here's what I've gotten from SuSE's FTP site as far as library versions: SuSE 8.1: glibc 2.2 libpng 1.2.4 SuSE 8.2: glibc 2.3 libpng 1.2.5 So the glibc version conflict is explained. The libpng conflict is strange, though, because I would expect those to be the same generation of libpng. What version does "rpm -qi libpng" report? I did some digging through the mailing list archives, and came across the thread in which you were having problems compiling 0.7.2 from source. I had forgotten that the source needed to be patched to compile it on SuSE 8.1 ( http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-April/000532.html ) Does the 0.7.3 source RPM build, or does it give you the same libpng errors as 0.7.2? Can you compile 0.7.3 from source? If not, does it work after applying the patch? If so, I'll add it to the SRPM and apply it for SuSE <= 8.1 (or better yet, if I can figure out a way to do it, only on versions of libpng that need it). I'll try to find time soon to install a copy of SuSE 8.1 so I can do my own testing & building. I'm not too fond of SuSE's FTP-based installation, but the rant would be way off-topic. For now, I've renamed the SuSE RPM to make it clear it will only work on 8.2. -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org
* Kelson Vibber <kelson@pobox.com> [08-07-03 13:01]:
Patrick,
From what you sent me it looks like the problem with the binary RPM is over new libpng and glibc versions.
Here's what I've gotten from SuSE's FTP site as far as library versions:
SuSE 8.1: glibc 2.2 libpng 1.2.4
SuSE 8.2: glibc 2.3 libpng 1.2.5
So the glibc version conflict is explained. The libpng conflict is strange, though, because I would expect those to be the same generation of libpng. What version does "rpm -qi libpng" report?
1.2.4
I did some digging through the mailing list archives, and came across the thread in which you were having problems compiling 0.7.2 from source. I had forgotten that the source needed to be patched to compile it on SuSE 8.1 ( http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-April/000532.html )
dillo.configure.diff: *** configure.dist 2003-04-29 18:24:39.000000000 +0200 --- configure 2003-04-30 11:43:31.000000000 +0200 *************** *** 4227,4233 **** PNG_CONFIG="`which libpng-config || which libpng12-config`" if test -n "$PNG_CONFIG" ; then ! CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS `$PNG_CONFIG --I_opts`" fi --- 4227,4233 ---- PNG_CONFIG="`which libpng-config || which libpng12-config`" if test -n "$PNG_CONFIG" ; then ! CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS `$PNG_CONFIG --cppflags`" fi
Does the 0.7.3 source RPM build, or does it give you the same libpng errors as 0.7.2? Can you compile 0.7.3 from source? If not, does it work after applying the patch? If so, I'll add it to the SRPM and apply it for SuSE <= 8.1 (or better yet, if I can figure out a way to do it, only on versions of libpng that need it).
0.7.3 compiles fine with the patch above and works... checkinstall generated dillo-dillo-1.i586.rpm, 1674753 bytes
I'll try to find time soon to install a copy of SuSE 8.1 so I can do my own testing & building. I'm not too fond of SuSE's FTP-based installation, but the rant would be way off-topic. For now, I've renamed the SuSE RPM to make it clear it will only work on 8.2.
-- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org
* Patrick Shanahan <paka@MyRealBox.com> [08-07-03 19:52]:
and works... checkinstall generated dillo-dillo-1.i586.rpm, 1674753 bytes
correction, dillo-0.7.3-1.i586.rpm, 1769215 bytes -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org
OK, here's a test SRPM that includes the patch: http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/dillo-0.7.3-2test1.src.rpm Right now I just have it adding the patch by default, since it won't actually change any behavior on Red Hat <= 9 or Mandrake <= 9.1. They don't include libpng-config or libpng12-config, so the line being changed never gets called. I'll have to check to make sure it doesn't cause problems for SuSE 8.2. Give it a try and let me know if it works - and what size it ends up being. That's the other mystery: how checkinstall ends up with such huge binaries. I don't do anything special to minimize the size, except calling "make install-strip" instead of "make install" - but I seem to recall that wasn't the issue in this case. -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org
* Kelson Vibber <kelson@pobox.com> [08-07-03 21:50]:
OK, here's a test SRPM that includes the patch: http://www.hyperborea.org/software/dillo/rpms/dillo-0.7.3-2test1.src.rpm
Right now I just have it adding the patch by default, since it won't actually change any behavior on Red Hat <= 9 or Mandrake <= 9.1. They don't include libpng-config or libpng12-config, so the line being changed never gets called. I'll have to check to make sure it doesn't cause problems for SuSE 8.2.
Give it a try and let me know if it works - and what size it ends up being.
239084, dillo-0.7.3-2test1.i586.rpm
That's the other mystery: how checkinstall ends up with such huge binaries. I don't do anything special to minimize the size, except calling "make install-strip" instead of "make install" - but I seem to recall that wasn't the issue in this case.
strip may be the answer. Checkinstall binary 3 417 690 after strip 323 176 test binary 323 208 change checkinstallrc 323 176 Edited /etc/checkinstallrc, # Automatically strip all ELF binaries? STRIP_ELF=1 # Automatically strip all ELF shared libraries? # Note: this setting will automatically be set to "0" if STRIP_ELF=0 STRIP_SO_ELF=1 'STRIP' Was originally '0', resulting rpm was 196002. The file locations in the rpms are different. Should I include them in an email to you or put them on my web site for you to download ?? tks, -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org
participants (2)
-
Kelson Vibber -
Patrick Shanahan