Message: previous - next
Month: October 2012

Re: [trinity-devel] To hide or not to hide (symbols)

From: "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:24:14 -0500
>> Yes, hidden symbols are a good thing and are enabled by
>> default .on the Debian/Ubuntu builds.  I am somewhat surprised that you
>> have encountered build failures; which modules failed to build?
> cmake
> applications/amarok/amarok.SlackBuild
> tdesdk/tdesdk.SlackBuild

I still build those modules with automake, so that might explain the

> automake
> applications/digikam/digikam.SlackBuild
> applications/k9copy/k9copy.SlackBuild
> applications/kaffeine/kaffeine.SlackBuild
> applications/kcmautostart/kcmautostart.SlackBuild
> applications/koffice/koffice.SlackBuild
> applications/konversation/konversation.SlackBuild
> libraries/libkdcraw/libkdcraw.SlackBuild
> libraries/libkexiv2/libkexiv2.SlackBuild
> libraries/libkipi/libkipi.SlackBuild
> libraries/kipi-plugins/kipi-plugins.SlackBuild
> tdeaddons/tdeaddons.SlackBuild
> tdeedu/tdeedu.SlackBuild
> tdemultimedia/tdemultimedia.SlackBuild
> tdewebdev/tdewebdev.SlackBuild
> I was explicitly declaring --enable-gcc-hidden-visibility or
> -DWITH_GCC_VISIBILITY=ON as appropriate.
> Not all of those listed were build failures. Some in the list simply spit
> out that the the configure option was unknown or not used. I do remember
> that kipi-plugins and digikam failed to build until I removed the option
> from libkdcraw and libkexiv2 and rebuilt; then digikam and kipi-plugins
> built. I've had DWITH_GCC_VISIBILITY=ON in arts, tdelibs, and tdebase
> since the announcment months ago.
> I could well be doing something wrong.

Probably not. :-)  Out of the lists you posted, which modules actually
failed to build vs. failed to configure?