2007-08-16, 10:27
FFS.
use the build script. you are obviously in dire need of it
use the build script. you are obviously in dire need of it
spiff Wrote:oh,
i thought your stuff checked for both and used whichever was avail (i'm rather ignorant on autotools..)
any chance it could be made to work that way ? (i assume so)
spiff Wrote:i thought it would be obvious from the context that i'm refering to my new anti-ferret firewall code.Which presumably is not required in the state of California?
tssgery Wrote:It can, and did, until a check was made to force the existence of liblzo. It's not a big deal, I'll make a quick change later today and supply the patch.
It also look like my change to the libPython/linux/Makefile didn't get it either (libpython2.4-pic doesn't exist on FC6. That is likely my error as I may not have included it in the first patch. I'll try and resolve that as well.
althekiller Wrote:liblzo2 has complete backwards compatibility with liblzo, so there should be no problems there. Maybe we should just require liblzo2 instead?
The only problem I can see with blindly using libpython2.4.a over libpython2.4-pic.a is the off chance it wasn't built with -fPIC. Being as it is a shared library it *should* be compiled this way, but this isn't to say that someone could build without it or that some binary distribution is built without it. Someone with more experience than me would have to say one way or the other as to what this would affect in XBMC. Other than that I have yet to find a way to determine what cflags libpython2.4.a is built with, it doesn't appear to use pkg-config
spiff Wrote:cheers tss.
i will apply this on sunday if nobody beats me to it. i'm severely drunk atm and dont dare go near svn and i'm going to a festival in the weekend.