I'm working on expanding "Type: perl 5.x.y" to other languages, and am
not sure how to handle the case for a package that is a versioned
language but also a "Type: nosource". There's already one package that
has this problem (slib-gu{14,16}) and there's no reason why there
couldn't be a quick'n'dirty perl module completely in .patch, or other
things that use the special magic of "Type: perl 5.x.y"/etc.One solution would be to make Type a comma-separated list, but that seems like a lot of work. But really, it seems like having no source to download is an orthogonal idea to the other Type uses. Would be better to use the Source field to handle this? Maybe a special "Source: [none]" or just a null value or omitting the field completely would make sense and be relatively easier to implement. Anyone have thoughts? dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
