Feature #96
Package request: libatomic-ops-dev
| Status: | Rejected | Start date: | 07/28/2009 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
| Assignee: | - | % Done: | 100% |
|
| Category: | Aports | |||
| Target version: | Alpine 2.0.0 |
Description
Homepage: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/download.php4
Latest release:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/download/libatomic_ops-1.2.tar.gz
But we really want a more recent version with e.g. PIC fixes. So we could probably take the debian version from:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libatomic-ops-dev
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/liba/libatomic-ops/libatomic-ops_1.2+cvs20080819.orig.tar.gz
Note, we probably want this as development package only: the package is mostly a huge bunch of header files to have inline assembler definitions for the atomic operations. It does provide two very small static libraries too for some larger functions. But I don't see any point in having two really small .so:s to create extra dependencies.
Associated revisions
testing/atomic-ops: new aport
A library for atomic operations
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/download.php4
We use the debian source package with cvs patch
fixes #96
testing/atomic-ops: removed since its not needed anymore
ref #96
History
Updated by Timo Teräs over 2 years ago
- Category set to Aports
Updated by Natanael Copa over 2 years ago
- Status changed from New to Resolved
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Applied in changeset 25c57eefb328d4a754ea9086dae5353f5eccd013.
Updated by Natanael Copa over 2 years ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
I added the package to testing. Care to give it a try and let me know if i can move it to main?
Thanks!
Updated by Natanael Copa about 2 years ago
- Target version set to Alpine 1.10.0
Updated by Natanael Copa almost 2 years ago
- Target version changed from Alpine 1.10.0 to Alpine 2.0.0
no-one seems to care about this.
Updated by Timo Teräs almost 2 years ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Rejected
Not needed after all. GCC built-ins provide all features needed, and are more robust. We also do not have any package requiring this, so this can be dropped.