"S h i v " <shivakumar.gn at gmail.com> writes:
> The URL part is actually ok. It URL has "bluefish-1.1.0.tar.bz2" for
> V1.1.0 and then bluefish-unstable-%{version}.tar.bz2 for V1.1.1,
> V1.1.2 and V1.1.3.
>
> I intentionally chose the latest one that did not say "unstable".
> (although it is under devel)
OK, but as I understand 1.1.0 is also unstable. So why bother with an
older unstable version? (Stable is v1.0.7)
I think SFEpkgs can be on the edge. If not, one could easely stay with
the installation itself i.m.h.o.
Bluefish websites clearly states their 'unstable' packages are solid
as a rock, biut only differ in having tho latest tools on board.
> Creating new patches for newer version is what I anyway wanted to do.
> So the earlier patches will not work is also understood.
Patching is not my thing, so I do hope you will go for the latest. ;-)
> The actual intention of the mail here was to explain that incase a
> corrupted tarball already exists under download_to directory, then
> the subsequent operations of pkgtool will always fail even if the
> URL is correct.
YES, that *is* not what we want. Clearly a bug. Hope this will be
resolved in a future release.
--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
++ http://nagual.nl/ + Solaris 11 05/07 ++
