Please excuse me for continuing a discussion that is several months old, but I am still not sure about a few things.
On 1/11/06, David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2006, at 10:05 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: > > > On 1/10/06, David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Asko Kauppi wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I have a package for Fink that is completely CPU ignorant; how > >>> should I mark it such in the .info file? > >> > >> That's the default behavior; no need to mark anything. > > > > If it has been discussed on the list and I missed it, I apologize, > > but how should I handle cases where it should not be the default > > behavior, some examples being the various common lisp packages I > > maintain? > > No, it hasn't been discussed before, you didn't miss anything! > > There are two ways to handle packages which need differences for the > powerpc and i386 architectures. One way is to use the existing > variants mechanism: we already have %m which fink will automatically > resolve to either powerpc or i386, so you can use constructions like > > (%m = powerpc) foo > (%m = i386) bar > > The other way is to use separate .info files for powerpc and i366 > architectures. Each of the separate files should have the new > Architecture field which designates which architecture the package is > designed for. The names of the files should be %n-%m.info (e.g., foo- > powerpc.info and foo-i386.info) or %n-%m-%v-%r.info (e.g. foo- > powerpc-1.1-1.info and foo-i386-1.1-1.info). I have a package "sbcl" that I have split into two .info files, one for each arch --> sbcl-i386.info and sbcl-powerpc.info (variants won't work in this specific case). What should the Package: field be for both of these files? Is it just "sbcl" or should I be doing something like "sbcl-%m"? If the answer is "sbcl-%m", how do I ensure that current users of "sbcl" get the upgrade to the new version of the package? On a sort of related note, another common lisp implementation I maintain now has a 64bit G5 specific version in addition to the original generic powerpc version. What can I do to ensure that only someone with a G5 installs the G5 version? Is there a virtual package or something I can depend on? - Lars > > The Architecture field is now (briefly) documented in the packaging > manual, and there is also some discussion on the developer wiki. > > Of course, the big problem at the moment is that unless you know a > developer with an Intel development machine or a friend with an early- > shipping iMac or MacBook Pro, there is no way to test whether your > package works on Intel or not! > > -- Dave > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
