Re: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10:14 PM, Charles Lepple wrote: On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 08:02 PM, John Davidorff Pell wrote: Tcltk: this one is a little odd: Apple has provided tcl, but not tk...? i'm at a loss... Check the list archives-- I believe someone figured out that Tk is an extra download from Apple. If you happen to track this one down, maybe there could be a system-tk package that lists the Apple URL for downloading their version. (I don't know for sure, but vaguely remember hearing that the version in Fink uses X11, where Apple's version uses Cocoa or Carbon.) -- Charles Lepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ghz.cc/charles/ i looked it up and it seems like its there for some tool installed by apple, but the stuff apple links to for tk has tcl and tk *both* built as frameworks, but the one included w/ MOX is built normally. I might suggest that the tcltk package become a bundle package and have fink compile just tk. what u think? JP --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Fwd: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
On Saturday, July 26, 2003, at 8:05 AM, David wrote: On Samstag, Juli 26, 2003, at 02:02 Uhr, John Davidorff Pell wrote: Here's my rationale for wanting some fink packages to be removed (or a system-foo package created??): Hello. While I appreciate all the effort you made to list those packages I do not quite understand which reasoning is behind _removing_ them? To offer additional packages where one might choose to stay with the system packages is surely an enhancement one can think about. Sometimes Apple failed to provide shared libraries one can link against and since I have not seen Panther yet, I have no idea if that has been fixed. I've been thinking about removing packages from fink and its seeming more and more like a bad idea, but I'm still all for making system-foo packages. Devel: AutoConf2.5: version 2.57 is provided by panther, obviously the other autoconf packages would remain for compatibility. :-) Auto Tools are a very tricky thing. Some packages require older auto tools, thus messing with those should be avoided, not to mention that most auto tools are tiny, so I see no benefit in adding a systems package. There are like 10 diff auto* package sin fink, all diff versions. since they're so small it makes little diff, but I was thinking that a few packages could be eliminated (but it would be pointless if we make system-autofoo packages) by removing the ones provided by the system. AutoMake1.6: version 1.6.1 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 1.6.3. M4: version 1.4 is provided by panther (dev tools), do we need a fink version? It might sound stupid, but why not? M4 is not exactly huge and while I cab agree, that we might wish for a system- package, there is no reason at all to remove it. Shells: Bash: version 2.05b is provided by panther and i really can't see any reason to have a package for it to begin with, but ... Because some people, like me, like to build their bash with a few enhacements ;) I totally understand that, I do the same things sometimes too. :-) but i've noticed that the only packages that i've seen depend on bash doesn't need the enhancements, also how do I (as a fink user) choose which enhancements I get in fink's bash? I would end up compiling it again myself anyway, depending on what I want. ;-) Tcsh: version 6.12.00 is provided by panther and ditto the above from bash... Zsh: version 4.0.4 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 4.0.6 Editors: Emacs: version 21.2.1 is provided by panther, current fink version is 21.3 VIM: version 6.1 is provided by panther, current (just released) fink version is 6.2 Because I use features that are in 6.2 :=) already? its been out for like a week! ;-) Base: Gzip: version 1.2.4 is provided by panther, is there a real need? libiconv: version 1.8 is provided by panther, (?? newer than fink's in the tree...??) Ncurses: version 5.2-20020209 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 5.3-? Yes, some coding I do relies on 5.3 and I am sure I am not the only one. then let's keep it! :-) Tar: version 1.13.25 is provided by panther Libs: Libxml2: version 2.5.4 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 2.5.6 X11: X11 in panther and freetype2 and all that fun stuff, but you already know about it... :-) Net: postfix-release: version 2.0.7 is provided by panther, it has replaced sendmail (I'm sure everyone knows already...) the current fink version is 2.0.10 You wish to replace an _older_ version with a newer one? What kinda strategy is that ? :) What I'm suggesting is that any packages that need it figure out if they need the *latest* version or not. postfix isn't as small as auto* or m4. make a system-postfix package. Crypto: Openssl: version 0.9.6i is provided by panther (not 0.9.7x). Most packages that link against openssl don't care whether its 0.9.6i or 0.9.7a or whatever, i think that the move to defaulting to openssl097 was a bad idea. I think that packages should depend on openssl and only 097 if needed. openssl097 'provides' openssl so if john doe wants 097, just install 097 and everything will link against it. This is incorrect. 097 behaves differently, there have been symbol changes and even significant algorithmic changes. Therefore it is important to some (as you pointed out not many) packages what they link against. For example xmlsec needs 097 for proper AES support. Having packages which do not care and are frshly added to the tree depend on openssl 0.97 is very smart in my opinion because 097 introduces not only speed benefits, but security fixes and vast enhancements over the 0.96 tree. Personally I'm all for having the latest version, but not for something I hardly use and for a package which isn't small by any standards, unless you compare it to kde or mozilla. This isn't simply an option of replacing 0.9.6i w/ 0.9.7a, but of keeping 0.9.6i and *adding* 0.9.7a. the space might not make a diff on newer
Fwd: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 6:16 PM, Ben Hines wrote: On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 05:02 PM, John Davidorff Pell wrote: Zsh: version 4.0.4 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 4.0.6 -snip much- I don't understand why you listed all these packages which fink has later versions. That's kinda the point of fink. Users want the latest can install the fink version, those who don't, don't. -Ben You're absolutely right, The packages I mentioned that had newer versions in fink I mentioned in hopes that a system-foo package be created for any other packages to depend on that need but don't need the newest version. JP --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 05:02 PM, John Davidorff Pell wrote: Zsh: version 4.0.4 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 4.0.6 -snip much- I don't understand why you listed all these packages which fink has later versions. That's kinda the point of fink. Users want the latest can install the fink version, those who don't, don't. -Ben --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
does it come with ldap support? I think not, the reason for all of these pkgs are a) missing build time features b) so we link again finks version and not apples, linking against apples can totally kill fink if apple decides to release un updated lib and we didn't know this way fink can make a strategy and work around it when upgrading our own libs. I my self have wanted many pkgs removed or system versions made, but after 1 year of running a system like that I'm totally against it. Can someone post this to the list since I can't anymore On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 06:02 PM, John Davidorff Pell wrote: postfix-release: version 2.0.7 is provided by panther, it has replaced sendmail (I'm sure everyone knows already...) the current fink version is 2.0.10 --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
I'm not sure if you got a response to your initial message or not. Apple has added a number of new open source pacakges with each major release of OS X. So far, fink's philosophy has been to keep providing a fink version of the package, even after Apple is providing their own. (The only exception to this that I can recall is with "libz", which is no longer provided by fink.) There are several reasons for this. One is that we don't yet trust Apple to be consistent in what they provide. (For example, they used to provide wget, which fink relied on, and then at a certain point they switched to curl. So we no longer trust them to provide either one of these, since they might switch back.) A second reason is that many users will already have the fink version of the library linked in to their packages, and upgrading becomes pretty tricky if we were to try to revert to Apple's version. A third reason is that Apple is not always good about keeping packages "current", and fink does that more frequently. All of that being said, there may be some reason to drop a few of the packages which Apple has added (or which they will add in 10.3). but these should be discussed on a case by case basis. -- Dave --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
Am Samstag, 26.07.03 um 02:02 Uhr schrieb John Davidorff Pell: Here's my rationale for wanting some fink packages to be removed (or a system-foo package created??): Sorry that's nonsense. None of the packages you list should be removed. In many cases the versions provided by Fink are newer. Even when at some point apple matches our versions, we updated them far more often. Also, we support Darwin, too, which does not necessarily ship with all of the libs OS X ships with. There is nothing to be gained by not providing these libs, but a lot of flexibility lost. Plus whenever Apple drops one of the libs/packages in question, we'd have to reintroduce support for them. Forget it. Maybe in a few cases adding system-foo packages maybe be sensible *and* possible at the same time, but for most (all?) of the packages you list, this is not the case. Bye, Max --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
Here's my rationale for wanting some fink packages to be removed (or a system-foo package created??): Devel: AutoConf2.5: version 2.57 is provided by panther, obviously the other autoconf packages would remain for compatibility. :-) AutoMake1.6: version 1.6.1 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 1.6.3. M4: version 1.4 is provided by panther (dev tools), do we need a fink version? Shells: Bash: version 2.05b is provided by panther and i really can't see any reason to have a package for it to begin with, but ... Tcsh: version 6.12.00 is provided by panther and ditto the above from bash... Zsh: version 4.0.4 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 4.0.6 Editors: Emacs: version 21.2.1 is provided by panther, current fink version is 21.3 VIM: version 6.1 is provided by panther, current (just released) fink version is 6.2 Base: Gzip: version 1.2.4 is provided by panther, is there a real need? libiconv: version 1.8 is provided by panther, (?? newer than fink's in the tree...??) Ncurses: version 5.2-20020209 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 5.3-? Tar: version 1.13.25 is provided by panther Libs: Libxml2: version 2.5.4 is provided by panther, the current fink version is 2.5.6 X11: X11 in panther and freetype2 and all that fun stuff, but you already know about it... :-) Languages: Perl 5.8.1 and all that, but its already covered... Python23: version 23b2 is provided by panther, obviously the older fink python packages should remain for compatability, but this one? Tcltk: this one is a little odd: Apple has provided tcl, but not tk...? i'm at a loss... Net: postfix-release: version 2.0.7 is provided by panther, it has replaced sendmail (I'm sure everyone knows already...) the current fink version is 2.0.10 Crypto: Openssl: version 0.9.6i is provided by panther (not 0.9.7x). Most packages that link against openssl don't care whether its 0.9.6i or 0.9.7a or whatever, i think that the move to defaulting to openssl097 was a bad idea. I think that packages should depend on openssl and only 097 if needed. openssl097 'provides' openssl so if john doe wants 097, just install 097 and everything will link against it. This is what I've seen so far, I realize that some packages should remain because of fink-specific changes or new versions or whatever, but some can be removed and some should have system-foo packages created for them. Some packages will be updated (i hope) b4 the public release of panther. I'd be happy to submit my own system-whatever packages if you're willing to use some of them (then again, its prob a better idea to have someone better than me write them...):-) -John -- God is dead, now the war shall never end. On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 5:51 AM, David R. Morrison wrote: I'm not sure if you got a response to your initial message or not. Apple has added a number of new open source pacakges with each major release of OS X. So far, fink's philosophy has been to keep providing a fink version of the package, even after Apple is providing their own. (The only exception to this that I can recall is with "libz", which is no longer provided by fink.) There are several reasons for this. One is that we don't yet trust Apple to be consistent in what they provide. (For example, they used to provide wget, which fink relied on, and then at a certain point they switched to curl. So we no longer trust them to provide either one of these, since they might switch back.) A second reason is that many users will already have the fink version of the library linked in to their packages, and upgrading becomes pretty tricky if we were to try to revert to Apple's version. A third reason is that Apple is not always good about keeping packages "current", and fink does that more frequently. All of that being said, there may be some reason to drop a few of the packages which Apple has added (or which they will add in 10.3). but these should be discussed on a case by case basis. -- Dave --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: packages that are part of the system
Replying to my own email Also, there have been lots of problems with ncurses, right? well, its in panther too! if we link against the apple libs so many problems with many packages will go away! Unless I'm missing something big (besides any possible upgrade schemes) this is the way to go! :-) JP -- Every time you share on a P2P network, God kills a kitten. Please think of the kittens. On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 2:26 AM, John Davidorff Pell wrote: I've noticed that a number of packages that are provided by fink are already included with the default install of MacOSX. i've found the following so far: AutoConf AutoMake Bash Emacs21 libiconv libxml2-2.5.4 m4 openssl-0.9.6i postfix python23 tcl (but not tk? I'm not sure) These are all in panther. Most are in Jag as well. libiconv is an essential package that need not be essential since its already there! I've made my own packages for the others (I don't like having redundant stuff on my comp) so when i build in fink my packages build against the system libs. I don't think this would break fink since there wouldn't be any systems without these packages. My $0.02. JP -- God is dead, now the war shall never end. --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
