[sword-devel] -O3 -g
ransom1982 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 02:14:30 MST 2009
> I'll try it commenting out --enable-debug in usrinst.sh. No difference.
> For me it works the same commenting out --enable-debug and using
> --disable-debug. On Ubuntu 9.10 amd64, and on Fedora 12 amd64 (I
> created a Fedora 12 VM, just for you :) , both ways of building SWORD
> generate warnings, just as long as debug is turned off.
Just to give real world use case for getting these fixed, if this was
a new package that had to be accepted into Fedora, it would have to be
clean with -Wall -Werror in a non-debug build (O2). We just recently
went through this with Xiphos because of the name change. It's at
least conceivable that they will apply this policy to older packages
sometime as well.
>> Aren't most systems running 64 bit these days?
> I don't know, I suspect many Linux users still run 32bit. Not all
> Linuxes that are 64bit use this lib64 directory convention. And some
> (few) users run Linux (and so SWORD) on other architectures completely.
>> Fedora uses /lib64 and /usr/lib64 by default on these systems, and
>> Ubuntu at least symlinks /lib64 and /usr/lib64 to /lib and /usr/lib
>> respectively, so we should be good on both distros with this.
> I think it's ugly and unnecessary, and makes creating i386 packages
> difficult. It's probably fine for you, as a personal default. It may
> even be fine for most SWORD developers, if they all have 64bit machines.
> But not for "normal" or release builds, IMO. Do remember, SWORD is
> being built on hppa, mips, powerpc and s390 these days (I rather doubt
> we have hordes of SWORD users on IBM s390, but the packages definitely
> exist!). Why make a path convention used by only some amd64 Linuxes the
> default for all architectures??
I've had to help several users (sword users, not Xiphos) who compiled
sword and then had problems because it ended up in /usr/lib64 on
More information about the sword-devel