[Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo m2crypto-python22.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python22.patch,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.patch,NONE,1.1
Are you there, Keith? A week ago, on fink-devel, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Keith Conger [EMAIL PROTECTED] committed: --- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.patch --- *** ../old_m2crypto/setup.py Sun Jun 22 11:45:33 2003 --- ./setup.py Wed Aug 6 14:17:18 2003 [old] ! include_dirs = [my_inc, '/usr/include'] ! library_dirs = ['/usr/lib'] [new] ! include_dirs = [my_inc, '/sw/include'] ! library_dirs = ['/sw/lib'] That appears to be some hard-coded /sw. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356alloc_id=3438op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo m2crypto-python22.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python22.patch,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.patch,NONE,1.1
On Feb 14, 2004, at 7:58 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote: On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Ben Hines wrote: Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard. Where is this documented? I cannot find that not in the 'creating fink packages' webpage. Here in the packaging manual : http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/packaging/reference.php#patches James --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356alloc_id=3438op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo m2crypto-python22.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python22.patch,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.patch,NONE,1.1
James Gibbs wrote: On Feb 14, 2004, at 7:58 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote: On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Ben Hines wrote: Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard. Where is this documented? I cannot find that not in the 'creating fink packages' webpage. Here in the packaging manual : http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/packaging/reference.php#patches Haha, only just. I added it a couple of hours ago, prior to that it was an unwritten rule that nobody had any chance to find out about unless they happened to ask. Peter -- Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356alloc_id=3438op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo m2crypto-python22.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python22.patch,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.patch,NONE,1.1
Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard. -Ben On Feb 13, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Daniel Macks wrote: That appears to be some hard-coded /sw. I don't think the validator catches it, however...whoever wrote the check for /sw in .patch only remembered to deal with unified context (diff -u) format. --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356alloc_id=3438op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo m2crypto-python22.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python22.patch,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.patch,NONE,1.1
Keith Conger [EMAIL PROTECTED] committed: Update of /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo --- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.info --- Patch: %f.patch But... --- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.patch --- so patch should be %n.patch, no? Also, while we're looking at the patch... *** ../old_m2crypto/setup.py Sun Jun 22 11:45:33 2003 --- ./setup.pyWed Aug 6 14:17:18 2003 [old] ! include_dirs = [my_inc, '/usr/include'] ! library_dirs = ['/usr/lib'] [new] ! include_dirs = [my_inc, '/sw/include'] ! library_dirs = ['/sw/lib'] That appears to be some hard-coded /sw. I don't think the validator catches it, however...whoever wrote the check for /sw in .patch only remembered to deal with unified context (diff -u) format. I wonder if it would be best to just run the unpack and patch phases for a fink with %p not /sw and then simply search %b for /sw. That way we also get patches applied by PatchScript (current tests only look at the file listed in Patch:) and also allow the original to have /sw which is then fixed during Patch/PatchScript). dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356alloc_id=3438op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
