% pwd
/sw/src/fink.build/root-magic74-7.4.59-1/sw/lib/magic/tcl
% otool -L exttosim.dylib
exttosim.dylib:
exttosim.dylib (compatibility version 0.0.0, current version
0.0.0)
OTOH, that looks a lot like an upstream bug in the package too
(similar to what dbreiser saw a week or so
On Jan 13, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
It doesn't actually check if private libraries are specified. So that's two
private-shlibs bugs. :)
The whitespace bug is fixed in HEAD now, but the deb file validator is still
having problems. I think this patch might fix it:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:21:29PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
It doesn't actually check if private libraries are specified. So that's
two
private-shlibs bugs. :)
The whitespace bug is fixed in HEAD now, but the deb file validator is
The package update I'm working on:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1926383group_id=17203atid=414256
The error message:
Error: package contains a dylib with no corresponding Shlibs entry
(/sw/lib/magic/tcl/exttosim.dylib - exttosim.dylib 0.0.0)
If this is a
On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:01 PM, David Fang wrote:
The package update I'm working on:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1926383group_id=17203atid=414256
The error message:
Error: package contains a dylib with no corresponding Shlibs entry
(/sw/lib/magic/tcl/exttosim.dylib
So it looks like we only get a simple filename, no full path.
What corrective action should be taken?
I only need this to work as a private shared library for this package.
What I had to do to quiet the validator in a more recent related
problem was include:
install_name_tool -id
David Fang wrote:
The package update I'm working on:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=1926383group_id=17203atid=414256
The error message:
Error: package contains a dylib with no corresponding Shlibs entry
(/sw/lib/magic/tcl/exttosim.dylib - exttosim.dylib 0.0.0)
On Jan 13, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
It doesn't actually check if private libraries are specified. So
that's two private-shlibs bugs. :)
The whitespace bug is fixed in HEAD now, but the deb file validator is
still having problems. I think this patch might fix it:
Index:
Hi,
The infofile for the package massxpert doesn't pass validation because
of:
Warning: Malformed line in field shlibs. (massxpert.info)
!/sw/lib/massxpert/plugins/libmassListSorterPlugin.dylib
If I replace /sw with %p in the info file, I still get the same error:
Warning: Malformed
On 14 Jan 2008, at 00:03, Daniel Johnson wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 13 Jan 2008, at 19:49, Koen van der Drift wrote:
Warning: Malformed line in field shlibs. (massxpert.info)
!/sw/lib/massxpert/plugins/libmassListSorterPlugin.dylib
If I
On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
But as coded e.g. in octave.info it does pass validation with fink
(= 0.27.99)
Just figured out that it only works when there are no trailing spaces
before the exclamation mark. So we should not use indentation in a
multiple
On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:27 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
But as coded e.g. in octave.info it does pass validation with fink
(= 0.27.99)
Just figured out that it only works when there are no trailing
spaces before the exclamation
On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
But why does it work in octave which only BuildDepends on fink =
0.27.9, instead of fink = 0.27.99. Since now I get the following
error:
Error: private-library entry in Shlibs requires declaring a
BuildDepends on fink (= 0.27.99) or
On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
But why does it work in octave which only BuildDepends on fink =
0.27.9, instead of fink = 0.27.99. Since now I get the following
error:
Error: private-library entry in Shlibs
On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
But why does it work in octave which only BuildDepends on fink =
0.27.9, instead of fink = 0.27.99. Since now I get the following
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
David R. Morrison wrote:
I guess you are using fink from CVS HEAD?
There are some extensions to the validator which check on the
validitiy
of the Shlibs fields and dependencies in fink
I can confirm Daniel's analysis:
Exile:/sw/fink/dists/unstable/main/binary-darwin-powerpc/libs/
perlmods koen$ fink validate bio-emboss-pm586_4.1.0-1_darwin-powerpc.deb
Validating .deb file bio-emboss-pm586_4.1.0-1_darwin-powerpc.deb...
Package looks good!
Can I go ahead and commit the new
Hi,
I am working on an new upstream version of the package bio-emboss-pm,
and I get the following validation message:
...
Validating .deb dir root-bio-emboss-pm586-4.1.0-1...
/usr/bin/otool: can't open file: root-bio-emboss-pm586-4.1.0-1/sw/lib/
I guess you are using fink from CVS HEAD?
There are some extensions to the validator which check on the
validitiy of the Shlibs fields and dependencies in fink packages.
These extensions are still under construction, so error messages
might be misleading.
Ben, care to comment?
-- Dave
David R. Morrison wrote:
I guess you are using fink from CVS HEAD?
There are some extensions to the validator which check on the validitiy
of the Shlibs fields and dependencies in fink packages. These
extensions are still under construction, so error messages might be
misleading.
On Apr 28, 2007, at 4:03 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
I guess you are using fink from CVS HEAD?
Yes.
- Koen.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and
On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:45 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
The problem is that there are things embedded in the .pyc that
indicate that the file thinks it will *actually* be in %i at runtime.
Try running 'strings' on the .pyc to see what paths it contains. The
result is the confusing situation that an
On Nov 3, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
So, can I leave it the way it is, or do I need to adjust my info
file? I am not very familiar with python (packages), so apolgies
if this is an too obvious question :)
I think if it works with install --root=%d instead of --prefix=%i,
23 matches
Mail list logo
