[kde-solaris] KDE 3.1.4 status update

Stefan Teleman steleman at nyc.rr.com
Wed Sep 24 01:11:33 CEST 2003

You're right. I've been playing with crle tonight and it seems to do 
the job -- used as crle -a <from> -o <to> -u -c <config file path>.

The only requirement would be to explicitly set $LD_CONFIG in 

I think this is a very very good idea!! Thank you!!



On Tuesday 23 September 2003 07:31, Laurent Blume wrote:
> Stefan Teleman wrote:
> > Given the unpleasant amount of problems some of you seem to have
> > had with the kderequired jumbo pkg and pkg relocation, i will
> > build 3.1.4 with RPATH disabled. This way, there will no
> > hardcoded library paths into shared libraries or executables. On
> > the flip side, this creates another little problem:
> > LD_LIBARY_PATH has to be set, and it may end up being very long.
> I thought using -R was just adding a first level of paths to look
> in at runtime link?
> Ie, you could leave it on, and if you don't have the given
> -R/path/to/lib, but have the right lib somewhere either in crle(1)
> or LD_LIBRARY_PATH, it would work?
> That would allow people like me to have very long crle(1) or
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH if they want to use their own compiled libs, and
> others to just install Sunfreeware/Blastwave/KDErequired stuff and
> get away with it,
> > I will also try my very best to re-package kderequired into its
> > separate components. That means there will be a _lot_ of
> > individual packages to be installed, one by one. I guess i would
> > call it a tradeoff in pain. :-) I don't know if this really is a
> > better approach, i am only trying to make things easier. If you
> > think it's a loser, please let me know. :-) It also means one
> > extra week of delay in releasing, because i have to build these
> > packages separately, one by one, and there's quite a few of them.
> > :-(
> I'm trying to do the same packages for my own use, and I understand
> the pain.
> Since it's my first try at packaging, I'm not sure I'm doing it the
> right way, but it seems to work so far - just takes long :-)
> > On the issue of why is kderequired really required: the truth is,
> > mixing very aggressively optimized Forte generated code with gcc
> > generated code (of which most of the time i cannot even determine
> > how it was built) does not always work. gcc C++ and Forte C++ are
> > not fully binary compatible with each other, especially at such
> > high levels of specific UltraSPARC optimization. When i was
> > working on my first try at KDE (early this year), i tried to use
> > some gcc built libraries off the 'Net, and i gave up very soon,
> > because of unpredictable behavior, which disappeared once i built
> > everything with Forte.
> I'm not a C++ specialist, but I'm *sure* that C++ ABIs are
> different between Forte and GCC, and any other C++ compiler (I was
> explained why recently on the solarisonintel list).
> So Forte-built libs won't link with GCC-built binaries.
> I guess that was one reason why Sun chose GNOME over KDE, since
> there is less C++ there.
> > Thank you so much to everyone for their kind support and
> > feedback.
> You're doing a great job, that's why :-)
> Laurent
> ___________________________________________________
> This message is from the kde-solaris mailing list.
> Account management: 
> http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-solaris. Archives:
> http://lists.kde.org/.
> More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.

Stefan Teleman          'Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition'
steleman at nyc.rr.com                          -Monty Python

More information about the kde-solaris mailing list