Re: [Fink-devel] Fwd: Compiling pwlib on 10.4 (Tiger)
On Jul 20, 2005, at 16:13:42, Jean-François Mertens wrote: Dear Kyle, Forgot to say how happy I am to see you back. I'm glad to be back. I've been busy with many other things, but I have a little more time now than I used to. To say only only one thing : I have a script that was accelerated 5-fold by using "finch-version-cmp" (from libfinch0) instead of "dpkg --compare-versions" .. Heh, now that's funny to hear. I never progressed very far on those packages, and I didn't think anybody found them very useful. If there's interest and my schedule has time, I may hack on them more, although I'm a bit busy at the moment hacking on the Linux kernel and trying to get GnomeMeeting to work on OS X Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- Somone asked me why I work on this free (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/) software stuff and not get a real job. Charles Shultz had the best answer: "Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Shultz --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Fwd: Compiling pwlib on 10.4 (Tiger)
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:29:33, Jean-François Mertens wrote: Dear Kyle, Is it worth to spend such effort on antiques ? Actually, I noticed this back before I really did any work on them. I've got pwlib-1.8.4 and part of openh323-1.15.3 compiling, with nice info files. While trying to get openh323 to compile, I noticed a few other bugs in the old pwlib packaging. I'll post when I've got more working. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C>$ UB/L/X/*(+)>$ P+++()>$ L(+ ++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b(++) DI+ D+ G e->$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-) --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Fwd: Compiling pwlib on 10.4 (Tiger)
On 20 Jul 2005, at 17:29, Jean-François Mertens wrote: Dear Kyle, Forgot to say how happy I am to see you back. To say only only one thing : I have a script that was accelerated 5-fold by using "finch-version-cmp" (from libfinch0) instead of "dpkg --compare-versions" .. Best, Jean-François --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/base tar.info,1.8,1.9
On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:56 AM, Martin Costabel wrote: I can understand that one would require packages to have *explicit* dependencies on essentials, as a preparation to eventually un- essentialize some of these, but *implicit* dependencies on essentials seems to be nonsensical. They are essential, so they are always there. So what's the sense of this? Martin, These 'implicit dependencies' are the *mechanism* that fink uses to ensure that they're always there. Our treatment of essential packages currently has a couple of, uh'surprising features'...so I'll be looking at changing some things. One of the changes under consideration is stopping these implicit dependencies, but this could break a lot of packages, so if we do this it might be best to start during construction of the 10.4 tree. Alternatively, maybe we could get buildfink to check for us how much would break this way, I'll talk to msachs about that. Dave PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] Fwd: Compiling pwlib on 10.4 (Tiger)
Dear Kyle,
On 19 Jul 2005, at 00:34, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Jul 18, 2005, at 17:34:55, Kyle Moffett wrote:
A quick followup, with the following info and patch files, I was
able to
get pwlib to build successfully. I've also patched openh323 to
build with
GCC 4.0 as well (It links to pwlib), and I'm testing that at the
moment.
When I get GnomeMeeting working, I'll post a followup.
Is it worth to spend such effort on antiques ?
The current stable srcs are (http://www.gnomemeeting.org/index.php?
rub=5&path=sources/sources)
gnomemeeting-1.2.1.tar.gz
openh323-1.15.3.tar.gz
pwlib-1.8.4.tar.gz
I just tried pwlib-1.8.4, it builds w/o problem with gcc-4.0
(only PatchScript :
sed -ri -e '/P_MACOSX/,+40{/socklen_t/d}' include/ptlib/unix/ptlib/
pmachdep.h
sed -ri -e '/P_MACOSX/,/^\#endif/c\
#include ' src/ptlib/unix/udll.cxx
)
Hopefully it is similar for the other 2...
I'll put the full info file in my exp dir, if you want to use it.
(correct shlibs, and deps..)
Best,
Jean-François
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click
___
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/base tar.info,1.8,1.9
Daniel Macks wrote: Update of /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/base In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv25842/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/base Modified Files: tar.info Log Message: *don't* use gettext3, since it causes a circular dependency: the dep engine literally treats all non-essentials as having a Depends on all essentials I can understand that one would require packages to have *explicit* dependencies on essentials, as a preparation to eventually un-essentialize some of these, but *implicit* dependencies on essentials seems to be nonsensical. They are essential, so they are always there. So what's the sense of this? -- Martin --- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
