On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (05 Jun 2008)
> # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners.
> # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724.
> dev-libs/libffi
> dev-lang/squeak
> x11-libs/gtk-server

The latest version of g-wrap (1.9.11) requires the external libffi
released a month or two ago, because it looks for the pkgconfig file
installed by that and not gcc:

- libffi is no longer distributed with g-wrap, as it is available
as a stand-alone package now (instead of being burried in the
GCC sources).

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

On 05-06-2008 22:47:28 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (05 Jun 2008)
> > # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners.
> > # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724.
> > dev-libs/libffi
> > dev-lang/squeak
> > x11-libs/gtk-server
>
> The latest version of g-wrap (1.9.11) requires the external libffi
> released a month or two ago, because it looks for the pkgconfig file
> installed by that and not gcc:
>
> - libffi is no longer distributed with g-wrap, as it is available
> as a stand-alone package now (instead of being burried in the
> GCC sources).
>
> Thoughts?

They might refer to this:
http://sourceware.org/libffi/
which had a "recent" release (3.0.5). The libffi that's in our tree
right now (3.4.3) is pretty old, matching GCC-3.4.3. It originally was
used for GNUstep, but that package can also work with GCC's libffi, and
ffcall these days.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun , Samuli Suominen wrote:
|> # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (05 Jun 2008)
|> # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners.
|> # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724.
|> dev-libs/libffi
|> dev-lang/squeak
|> x11-libs/gtk-server
|
| The latest version of g-wrap (1.9.11) requires the external libffi
| released a month or two ago, because it looks for the pkgconfig file
| installed by that and not gcc:
|
| - libffi is no longer distributed with g-wrap, as it is available
| as a stand-alone package now (instead of being burried in the
| GCC sources).
|
| Thoughts?

I think we should use this unbundled libffi in favor of the one that will continue to be
bundled with gcc. A normal dep is nicer than a use dep on gcc with libffi for one. I don't
see any reason why this ``new' libffi should become unmaintained again soon.

Marijn

Relevant bug: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163724

- --
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhRU9cACgkQp/VmCx0OL2x56gCfbBE7GiypORQqcyKnjUaGgHc/
0WcAnA31US1030TisMMUN9D2OCJuJZb3
=1xLl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 09:35 +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
> > On 14:52 Thu 05 Jun , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (05 Jun 2008)
> >> # Masked for removal in ~30 days by treecleaners.
> >> # Replaced by USE libffi in sys-devel/gcc. Bug 163724.
> >> dev-libs/libffi
> >> dev-lang/squeak
> >> x11-libs/gtk-server
> >
> > The latest version of g-wrap (1.9.11) requires the external libffi
> > released a month or two ago, because it looks for the pkgconfig file
> > installed by that and not gcc:
> >
> > - libffi is no longer distributed with g-wrap, as it is available
> > as a stand-alone package now (instead of being burried in the
> > GCC sources).
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I'd vote for an external libffi as well since python currently has to use
> it's bundled version of it (statically linking against it).
> Using libffi provided by gcc (and linking dynamically) is no option yet
> since portage doesn't protect the user from destroying his system by
> re-emerging gcc without gcj or libffi USE flags (rev-dep check and
> USE-based deps would be needed).

Isn't it always preferable to separate packages and break them down into
peaces (in this case have an external libffi) instead of having big
packages with lots of stuff (in this case GCC) ?

Perhaps it's more work to maintain, but I as a user would prefer an
external libffi.


--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list