At 8:27 Uhr -0500 30.01.2003, David R. Morrison wrote:
Yup. In my local tests, this seems to work well enough. I used the name openssl097-shlibs, does that sound reasonable?Well, Max, I like your strategy and I agree it would be a great application of the shlibs project. However, this part of the shlibs project isn't implemented yet! I have to write the code and integrate it into Fink, and I haven't had time to do that.However, even without the shlibs code this can still be done. You just have to update all of the packages which depend on openssl-shlibs to depend on the new openssl97-shlibs instead (with a new version). We'll have to keep openssl-shlibs around as a backward-compatibility library for a while, but anybody who newly builds things will have them linked to the correct library.
In fact, I think we don't even have to revision up the packages when making the transition from openssl-shlibs to openssl097-shlibs: packages built against the old one will continue to work fine, and new ones will be fine, too.
Still, while I'd like this (much less work, and users aren't forced to rebuild their packages for nothing), it of course poses a problem due to the mismatch between stable and unstable: should users not have unstable *before* stable in their tree list (I am only refering to users who have unstabled enabled anyway), they would get into a bad state.
Hence, we have to revision up anyway... hm. I guess the best thing is if I do that for all the involved packages, as it should be done at the same time as the new openssl gets checked in to avoid any issues.
Max
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
