Dave Vasilevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 26, 2005, at 6:08 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: > > OK, in my opinion, this behavior as reported by Robert indicates that > > the > > buildlock system is not yet working as it should. > > It's working fine, it's catching a bug in Fink right away rather than > later. :-) > > > Fink is "supposed" to be able to switch back and forth among db3 vs. > > db42, > > or ncurses5 vs. libncurses5. So shouldn't we be trying to restore the > > dependencies of the buildlock package, instead of just refusing to > > install > > it? > > Fink never did this properly. In one invocation, it can accomplish > precisely ONE switch between replaceable packages, and sometimes it > even does that wrong. At least now we're not letting it pass when it > could cause an error. > > > (For example, we could add each new deb to the scanpackages database > > just after it's built, and then ask apt-get (rather than dpkg) to > > install > > the buildlock... which would "put back" a .deb that just got removed, > > presumably.) > > That's one idea. I was under the impression that Justin's shlibs > changes in post-0.24 would be re-calculating dependencies before and > after each build, which is another way to solve this issue. Am I right > or wrong about that? > > Dave >
That's not relevant, actually. The issue is: which -dev packages are present at buildtime. Those aren't recalculated. -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
