On Wed, Oct 01, 2003, Steffen Weinreich wrote:
> --On Mittwoch, Oktober 01, 2003 13:28:14 -0400 Dennis McRitchie
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm trying to build pine 4.58 from the OpenPKG "current" repository. It
> >tells me that it needs 2 dependencies I don't have:
> >
> >1) openpkg >= 20030909
> >
> >All my other installed packages are from the 1.3 release, and I'm only
> >getting pine from the "current" repository because it's not available in
> >the 1.3 release. So is this a real dependency, or will pine build and
> >install fine if I have openpkg-1.3.1-1.3.1 installed? (If it is the
> >latter, I will just edit the spec file.)
>
> The recommended way is to use also the current openpkg package if you plan
> to use packages out of the current tree. [...]
>
That's the correct general answer. It usually doesn't take a long time
after any RELEASE that incompatible changes are introduced in the
CURRENT trunk. Because this CURRENT trunk will eventually become the
next release we try hard to be backwards compatible. That means the more
correct general recommendation is to use the most recent CURRENT openpkg
package dated between your release and the next release or HEAD if no
next release exists, yet. Keep this in mind.
Regarding the current situation today we have already introduced one
incompatiblity, the %{l_platform} macro that makes use of the OSSP
platform script. You can find those important issues in the HISTORY
[1] file, which is manually maintained condensed information from the
CVS timeline [2]. The history log points out that %{l_platform} was
introduced one day before the pine requirement >= 20030909 and a look
into the pine package exhibits that this macro is really used. So pine
really won't work with openpkg-1.3.0-1.3.0.
The good news is that because this new macro is both important and
wide-spread we decided to include this feature into openpkg-1.3.1-1.3.1
[3] for forward compatiblity. If this macro is the only incompatiblity
then today's CURRENT packages will work with the 1.3.1 update of
OpenPKG. Chances are that pine is one of them. Have fun!
> >2) MTA
> >
> >I assume that this is referring to a Mail Transport Agent. [...]
Exactly. In many situations it costs more to tweak a package to not
use an MTA than to convince the user to install an MTA just to fulfill
the requirement. That's why we provide the ssmtp package. It is a tiny
little submit-only software package. I have to admit that it has few
requirements but too many for bootstrapping, as Bill pointed out when
describing his issue with "sudo" in another posting within this thread.
[1] http://cvs.openpkg.org/getfile?f=openpkg-src/openpkg/HISTORY
[2] http://cvs.openpkg.org/rlog?f=openpkg-src/openpkg/openpkg.spec
[3] http://cvs.openpkg.org/chngview?cn=12446
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Cable & Wireless
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
User Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
