|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2005-11-22 13:36:50
|
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 00:32, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Monday 21 November 2005 16:59, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
>
> > So what is the exact problem?
>
> well, by default packages should install their documentation into
> %_docdir/%{name}, this rule is violated here.
The reasoning for putting the callgrind docu nearside valgrinds documentation
was the hope that some "magic" would allow to link clg's docu inside of vg's docu.
But valgrinds launcher at least should list available tools.
This worked in VG 3.0. Is the a way to revive this with VG 3.1 ?
Oh well, I can also install the docu into %_docdir/%{name}.
I am neither a autoconf/make nor RPM-specfile guru. What should
be the docdir definition in docs/Makefile.am ?
> Anyway, I generally agree that there is tight coupling between callgrind and
> valgrind. callgrind packages should probably be named "valgrind-callgrind"
> instead.
But I can not do anything about this. Package naming is distro specific.
> BTW, callgrind still fails configure on x86_64 on bi-arch systems. Thats
> because the .pc files are in /usr/lib64 then, which doesn't work with the
> hardcoded paths in configure.
Where are hardcoded paths in configure?
VG's installation currently does not let me detect for a biarch installation.
If you have an idea how to make this work, I would appreciate it.
Can you provide a patch? I suppose this first needs VG to install 2 .pc files.
> I don't see why one shouldn't use pkgconfig here, so I've made a patch that
> converts configure to use pkgconfig. See below. (Its been around for a long
> time, I'm quite surprised nobody has noticed this before).
I did this "pkg-extract" for callgrind 0.9.x, as it could be installed on
very old systems (e.g. with VG 2.0.x), and I was not sure if pkgconfig is
available here, especially as VG itself does not need pkgconfig. But that
reasoning seems to be moot for VG 3.
Probably I should check for pkgconfig in configure before using it?
Josef
>
>
> Dirk
>
|