the arch was the only thing I was a little on the fence about, I used all cause i knew it'd work and give the least amount of grief but really I think it should be the system's arch, but I wanted to talk to you about that, what is the best fink function to return x86_64?
Sorry I haven't been reachable this flood in AB is affecting my internet, I'm tethered at the moment to check email. --- TS http://www.southofheaven.org/ Life begins and ends with chaos, live between the chaos! On 2013-06-21, at 11:56 PM, Daniel Macks <dma...@netspace.org> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:11:20 -0600, TheSin <the...@southofheaven.org> wrote: > The new apt is much more strict on the fields in status files, to get > it to work I need to make a few minor changes to f-v-p, I spent lots of > time working on apt 0.9.82 trying to figure out why girts weren't > working and it turns out the parser was considering them invalid due to > missing fields like arch and priority. So I made a quick patch which > is in my pull request and i'll attach it here as well. I'd add it > myself but I'm not sure which branch and if it'll affect anything else > that uses f-v-p >> >> the current output looks like >> >> Package: 64bit-cpu >> Status: install ok installed >> Version: 0-1 >> description: [virtual package representing the 64bit capability of the CPU] >> >> I'd like to change it to look like >> >> Package: 64bit-cpu >> Status: install ok installed >> Priority: optional >> Architecture: all >> Version: 0-1 >> Maintainer: Fink Devel <fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >> Description: [virtual package representing the 64bit capability of the CPU] >> The presence of the 64bit-cpu package indicates that the CPU on which we >> are running is 64bit capable. >> . >> Web site: http://www.finkproject.org/faq/usage-general.php#virtpackage >> . >> Maintainer: Fink Devel <fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > > This change to --apt output looks reasonable to me. I talked to TheSin > in #fink yesterday, who confirmed that old apt would also accept it, so > I don't see harm in sending this to master now (rather than later as > part of the large apt upgrade work) (would also benefit anyone who's > experimenting with new debian tools of any sort). > > Technical question: Is this really Architecture:all, given that it's > generated by a fink that is single-arch? > > dan > > -- > Daniel Macks > dma...@netspace.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Fink-devel mailing list > Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > List archive: > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel > Subscription management: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
