Re: [fink-core] Any objections to a new fink release?

Go ahead, and thanks for taking care of it > Am 07.02.2016 um 23:11 schrieb Alexander Hansen : > > We’re a couple of El Capitan teeny versions behind on “This distribution is > supported and tested.” :-) We’ve also had a few other fixes. > > > > > -- >

[fink-core] Status as Fink maintainer?

Hi Fang, (CC: fink-core) I contacted you last October and this January about updates for mpfr and gmp, with new info files attached. No reply by you. Could you please clarify whether you are still active as package maintainer? Thanks, Max

Re: [fink-core] New openssl location

Hi, > On 26 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Daniel Johnson wrote: > > There is a new OpenSSL libversion out, 1.1.0. I’ve made a new package but > want to check with everyone else where I should put it, base or crypto. It > does have a new BuildDepends, text-template-pm, so

Re: [fink-core] Time to de-emphasize SourceForge

Hi, > Am 01.10.2017 um 07:30 schrieb Alexander Hansen : > > 1) We no longer have the ability to remove locks from CVS. > 2) They’ve reduced our ability to administer our mailing lists—the list > owner can’t even remove users any more. > > I’d be OK with having

Re: [fink-core] CVS support at SourceForge and Nov. 30

Dear all, SF.net meant to disable CVS commits yesterday, but it seems they have not yet (at least I was just able to commit something). I have been badly out of the loop, but: is anybody working on a transition plan? It seems high time for one, no? It seems we need at least this, in order:

[fink-core] Fink development work flow: pull requests? reviews?

Hi there, so I recently had some time and motivation to work on a few small patches for fink. And since things are now on GitHub, I thought it might be best to submit them as pull requests, so that they can be reviewed and then merged (as opposed to just pushing them directly, as I would have

Re: [fink-core] Merge #166 ?

> On 12. Dec 2018, at 11:11, Hanspeter Niederstrasser > wrote: > > On 12/11/18 11:14 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: >> I was thinking that it might help us if we do the aforementioned merge to >> facilitate community testing, etc. >> -akh > > I'm OK with that. TheSin said he'd added a couple

Re: [fink-core] Merge #166 ?

PS: I have now committed a fix for python2.7, in which I point it at the SDK_PATH. So, yeah, it seems useful to expose that to packages. Perhaps we might even want to add `-I$SDK_PATH/usr/include` to the default CPPFLAGS? Note: the headers in /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX.sdk

Re: [fink-core] Merge #166 ?

Hi all, thanks for the feedback, I have fixed the ARCHFLAGS now and made the code generally more robust, adding a new helper Fink::Services::get_sdkpath() which returns an empty string on Darwin < 18 and the SDK path as returned by `xcrun --sdk macosx --show-sdk-path`. I believe it would make

Re: [fink-core] Merge #166 ?

> On 12. Dec 2018, at 12:14, Max Horn wrote: > > > >> On 12. Dec 2018, at 11:11, Hanspeter Niederstrasser >> wrote: >> >> On 12/11/18 11:14 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: >>> I was thinking that it might help us if we do the aforementioned me