Skip to content

Hack to select iconv implementation - libiconv vs. libc iconv. #15213

Closed
iarspider wants to merge 8 commits intospack:developfrom
iarspider:libiconv-hack
Closed

Hack to select iconv implementation - libiconv vs. libc iconv. #15213
iarspider wants to merge 8 commits intospack:developfrom
iarspider:libiconv-hack

Conversation

@iarspider
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@iarspider iarspider commented Feb 25, 2020

We at SFT-SPI would like to use libc's implementation of iconv, as opposed to libiconv one. This PR introduces a new virtual package iconv and a dummy package libc to provide it.

lib's and libiconv's implementation of iconv should be compatible on API level, but I'm testing this just in case.

Packages that directly depend on libiconv:

  • apr-util
  • dcmtk
  • doxygen
  • gdal
  • glib
  • gnuplot
  • gtksourceview
  • libgd
  • libunistring
  • libxslt
  • ncl
  • procps
  • unixodbc
  • xerces-c
  • bash
  • diffutils
  • gcc
  • git
  • gnupg
  • grass
  • lftp
  • libspatialite
  • libxml2
  • mono
  • poppler
  • tar
  • wget

@iarspider iarspider closed this Feb 25, 2020
@iarspider iarspider reopened this Feb 25, 2020
@iarspider iarspider changed the title [WIP] Hack to select iconv implementation - libiconv vs. libc iconv. Hack to select iconv implementation - libiconv vs. libc iconv. Feb 28, 2020
@iarspider
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Not sure about one small detail: do we want only libc+iconv to provideiconv, or just libc? Implementing the former is (IMO) overkill.

iarspider added a commit to iarspider/spack that referenced this pull request Mar 11, 2020
@iarspider iarspider closed this Mar 11, 2020
adamjstewart pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2020
@iarspider iarspider deleted the libiconv-hack branch June 8, 2020 13:04
ReinhardPrix pushed a commit to ReinhardPrix/spack that referenced this pull request Jul 20, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants