At 17:54 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Max Horn wrote: >>At 6:42 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >>>I feel kind of stupid now, but maybe something where Fink could >>>update itself to the latest cvs would be helpful >> >>"fink selfupdate-cvs" >> >>It's already there. All essential packages (including Fink) are >>automaticall updated if you run it >> >>Also, binary distro doesn't involve the Fink package manager at >>all, hence such a field as you propose wouldn't do anything with >>regards to the bindist. And there is no need for it either, since >>the "new binaries" work fine with the "old" package manager. > >I think you misinterpreted my idea, let me try to rephrase it: > >Let's say that we need a new tag 'Foo:' for some packages. The tag >is made, added to pm cvs and everything is OK. The problems come >when somebody using unstable cvs packages tries to install a package >using that tag. At the moment fink will fail with some weird error >(Depending on the tag and its purpose).
Well, if they do it the right way (using fink selfupdate-cvs), then Fink will already be updated! Fink is usually no more than a couple of days in unstable only. And in any case, if you mess with unstable, you bear the risks. > I was suggesting that instead, all packages needing features not >present in the latest released package manager could be identified >by 'Depends: fink-cvs (>= #date#)' or 'NeedsFinkCVS: #date#'. We do this already, though with BuildDepends. > Then Fink could by default ignore packages in CVS (stable or >unstable) that have a non-cvs version or a cvs version older than >#date#. Then an optional tag could be set in fink.conf for >developers and beta testers. This tag would tell Fink to ask the >developer if they want to update the fink pkg manager from cvs on >the detection of such a package. Well, why? a) developers should also use fink selfupdate-cvs b) developers that don't use it should be clever enough to know a new Fink PM might be needed (like by the announce mails on the mailing list) c) most developers seem to use unstable anyway d) the package already builddepend on fink >= Foo-Bar So what would we gain? So far I see nothing. Why should Fink tell the user explicitly to please update fink, when it does so automatically anyway (remember, FInk is an essential package, it's updated automatically). Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
