-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Why 7? I'm assuming we're focusing on libapt-pkg.4.8.0.dylib.
$ otool -D /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib: /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib Since the install_name of the library is /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib, I'd think we'd need "apt4.8-shlibs" or something like that. On 7/2/10 12:12 PM, Sjors Gielen wrote: > > Op 24 jun 2010, om 16:37 heeft Alexander Hansen het volgende geschreven: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> The experimental apt-shlibs violates the Shlibs policy. > > Hi Alexander, > > I have, due to a lack of time in the past week, only just fixed this in the > latest apt versions. The apt-shlibs and apt-dev packages are now called > apt7-shlibs and apt7-dev due to their version "0.7.25.3"; I considered it > overkill (for now) to call them apt725-shlibs. Could you please confirm that > was a good choice and that the original policy violation in the packages is > gone? > > Files in the experimental package are still the same: > $ dpkg -L apt7-shlibs > /. > /sw > /sw/lib > /sw/lib/libapt-inst.1.1.0.dylib > /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.0.dylib > /sw/share > /sw/share/doc > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/AUTHORS > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/COPYING > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/COPYING.GPL > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/README.arch > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/README.ddtp > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/README.make > /sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/README.progress-reporting > /sw/lib/libapt-inst.1.1.dylib > /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib > > I'm offline at this moment. This e-mail will be sent as soon as I go online > again, and I'll upload the new .info file to my experimental as soon as > possible then. It will have version 0.7.25.3-5. > >> Hmm, seems like the AutoRemover destroyed something which really >> shouldn't happen. Please file a bug report against apt. >> >> The following information may help to resolve the situation: > > I will check the ChangeLog of apt releases after this one, which will > hopefully point out where this bug was fixed. I'll then bump the package to > that newer version if I can find one. Weird thing is - I also have an > unofficial bindist for unstable, and I've never seen this bug before. Did you > ever have it again after unstable-apt solved the particular problem? Or do > you have any other ideas why this would be happening? The version of apt I > packaged is actually in use by a stable version of Ubuntu, so I would have > guessed it did not have bugs like this... > > Thanks, > Sjors - -- Alexander Hansen Fink User Liaison -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEUEARECAAYFAkwvWdQACgkQB8UpO3rKjQ/PWwCYiD+VJKMEzNAIOZAwLG/VH+qC igCdGb+yblPEkRdmCTWBUomfePtYGak= =4lz+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
