indeed, this occurs if I build nanomsg using the GitHub release tarball.
There is no .git accounting inside the tarball.
I think the libnanomsg.so.5.0.0 should not be a symlink, but a binary,
regardless of whether it is build from GIT or from the release.
Then there should be two symlinks to it:
- libnanomsg.so.5 (the main library version symlink)
- libnanomsg.so (the development symlink)
This is the standard way of library naming.
2016-05-17 02:52 keltezéssel, Garrett D'Amore írta:
So I think I know where the “Unknown” came from.
Basically, when building from something other than git, there is no .version file (make dist used to build this I think) which results in the process having no idea what the package version. I need to think about ways to fix this — I had not built a “SOURCE” package, but it appears we actually need a separate SOURCE package.
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx
> I actually found installing asciidoctor far less onerous than the old
had lots of problems getting the docbook and libxslt to work for me -
because my preferred work platform is not Linux.
> So Ruby is a requirement - and all of its dependencies - if you want to
documentation. But it's entirely optional to do so. Getting ruby for most
platforms is usually close to trivial. And I think asciidoctor should be
neutral. If it isn't packaged for other platforms that might just be due to
effort at the distro.
So in the context of source-based Linux distributions like Gentoo,
this means that formatting documentation will for many people require
first building libyaml, ragel, ruby, rubygems, rake, racc, json, rdoc
and finally asciidoctor. To me, the cost/benefit of that is totally
> As far as the Unknown thing - that's a mystery to me. What version of
you using ?
I have cmake-3.3.1 installed.