[MINC-users] Regarding Ubuntu packages

[Lars Johannesen]

Andrew Janke skrev:
> Hi Lars,
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Lars Johannesen <ljoh06 at hst.aau.dk> wrote:
>   
>> I tried to compile emma 0.9.9 (newest version from:
>> http://packages.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/tgz/), I am running Ubuntu Feisty
>> AMD64 with the minc package from:
>> http://packages.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/ubuntu-feisty-amd64/.
>>
>> And when compiling the mex-part, I got a error about lacking -fPIC, so I
>> downloaded the newest minc2 tarball from same place as emma, configured
>> with:
>> ./configure --with-pic
>>
>> Normal build, and re-compiled emma and it worked fine
>>
>> Could it be that the minc2 ubuntu package lacks -fPIC ?
>>     
>
> Well I can say that it does. Given that I dont specify it. What I
> think is going on here though is that before packaging I strip out all
> the libtool .la files. There are many reasons for this but the
> predominant one is that the current build system I use to do this gets
> the build paths wrong and thus would give more pain than it is worth.
>   
Ok just had to confirm, not that strong in packaging, just thought I'd 
mention linkage problems.
> The better answer to this is that I am currently working on getting my
> own PPA up and going here:
>
>    https://launchpad.net/~a.janke/+archive
>
> For all the MINC tools that will build (finally) upon Steve Robins
> minc-tools build for Debian/Ubuntu.
>   
Nice :) looking forward to it, will the emma toolbox be included in this ?
>   
>> and is it
>> possible to get the ubuntu-source package ?
>>     
>
> Certainly:
>
>    http://packages.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/tgz/minc-2.0.16.tar.gz
>
> Is what I build from.
>   
Ok I mentioned the tarballs just to state, that it is not a version problem.

best regards
  Lars
>
>