On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:39 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
- autosync of sources: Need a machine running fink selfupdate-cvs;
fink fetch-all; rsync to server every 10 minutes or something
similar. Any ideas there? OpenDarwin is going to help with this. Only
need one machine to do that, the other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Dienstag, März 4, 2003, at 06:39 Uhr, Ben Hines wrote:
snip
If any download fails, the user can go to the next set of mirrors,
for example if they are on preference 3, they will get Retry using
direct fink mirrors as a choice, if they are on
Alexander Strange [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm currently doing a 'fetch-all' on a Fink install hacked onto a
FreeBSD server. I'll upload it to OpenDarwin tomorrow afternoon (it's
4am right now) when I get back from school. I expect it'll be waiting
for me to tell it to retry a package
At 23:29 Uhr -0800 03.03.2003, Alexander Strange wrote:
Update of /cvsroot/fink/fink
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv13084
Modified Files:
bootstrap.pl
Log Message:
Fixing bootstrap on darwin/x86 for bbraun co
Index: bootstrap.pl
At 4:49 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Alexander Strange wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:39 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
- autosync of sources: Need a machine running fink selfupdate-cvs;
fink fetch-all; rsync to server every 10 minutes or something
similar. Any ideas there? OpenDarwin is going to help
This new system is great, but it raises again the issue of how we are to
treat packages which we don't have the right to redistribute.
We recently introduced a new category Restrictive/Distributable which
covers cases of a non-free license which still permits us to redistribute
in both source and
At 22:39 Uhr -0800 03.03.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Justin Hallett wrote:
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used, I have
a number of rc pkgs.
It is almost good that it is not documented. It really should not be
used except in grave
Le mardi, 4 mars 2003, à 15:34 Europe/Paris, Max Horn a écrit :
At 9:01 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you propse
should be done here to make it debian version compliant? 4.9 and
5.0 ? or 5.0 and 5.0a ? Or
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 09:01 US/Eastern, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you propse
should be done here to make it debian version compliant? 4.9 and
5.0 ? or 5.0 and 5.0a ? Or what? None of them seems appealing to me.
Both
Ben Hines [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently testing my fink mirror patch. It adds a fink mirror
that is intended to hold a mirror of every source tarball, so there
will no longer be any breaking URLs.
Sounds like a great idea in general. However, there probably should be
mechanisms to
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 06:48 PM, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
Ben Hines [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently testing my fink mirror patch. It adds a fink mirror
that is intended to hold a mirror of every source tarball, so there
will no longer be any breaking URLs.
Sounds like a great idea
At 19:23 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Alexander Strange wrote:
[...]
- Are we sure we have the right to mirror the source to any fink
package, or could some of them be licensed under licenses that
forbid mirroring?
Restrictive packages will be removed from the mirror as soon as we
have code in
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 02:20 AM, David wrote:
On Dienstag, März 4, 2003, at 06:39 Uhr, Ben Hines wrote:
snip
If any download fails, the user can go to the next set of mirrors,
for example if they are on preference 3, they will get Retry using
direct fink mirrors as a choice, if they
Alexander Strange [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 06:48 PM, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
- Some packages are just too large and obscure. For instance, if I
were to do a 5 piece endgame tablebase package for crafty (which
I haven't done yet), we're talking 6G of disk space,
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 04:39 PM, Max Horn wrote:
At 19:23 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Alexander Strange wrote:
[...]
- Are we sure we have the right to mirror the source to any fink
package, or could some of them be licensed under licenses that
forbid mirroring?
Restrictive packages will
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 03:48 PM, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
Ben Hines [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently testing my fink mirror patch. It adds a fink mirror
that is intended to hold a mirror of every source tarball, so there
will no longer be any breaking URLs.
Sounds like a great
I'm about to release proftpd 1.2.8 final and RC2 is in unstable ATM and
this is what I'm gonna do, unless someone objects in the next hmm 30
minutes :)
Current: 1.2.8RC2-1
New: 1.2.8-Final-1
Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is something I have seen done with Debian. It makes
less
At 17:38 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 09:01 US/Eastern, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you
propse should be done here to make it debian version compliant?
4.9 and 5.0 ? or 5.0 and 5.0a ?
nope, it does work causes - is higher then R
Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that will work, as 8RC2 8 from dpkg's point of view.
This should
have originally been done as
%v=1.2.7. %r=1.2.8rc2-1
or
%v=1.2.8 %r=0-1.2.8rc2-1
-=[JFH] Justin F.
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 17:56 US/Eastern, Max Horn wrote:
Uh this is exactly the abusive notation I mentioned above. It would
mean using a completly different version than upstream. With Ben's
suggestion at least it looks identical if you don't look to closely...
So users will know what it
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 06:39 PM, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:51 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 03:48 PM, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
- Some packages are just too large and obscure. For instance, if I
were to do a 5 piece endgame tablebase
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 06:51 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 06:39 PM, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:51 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 03:48 PM, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
- Some packages are just too large and obscure.
there is a fairly clean solution, that could be hard coded in fink for
now, is:
fink build xfree86 fink scanpackages sudo apt-get update sudo
apt-get install xfree86
apt is able to install xfree 4.3 over the 4.2 packages because it is
smart enough to know to override dpkg because the new
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
At 22:39 Uhr -0800 03.03.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Justin Hallett wrote:
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used,
I have
a number of rc pkgs.
It is almost good that it is
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Quite apparently we have different stances on this. So, please explain, how exactly do you think this version fudging should work, w/o confusing users by using completly different versions than the rest of the world for a given package?
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 19:37 US/Eastern, Max Horn wrote:
At 17:58 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 17:35 US/Eastern, Justin Hallett wrote:
I'm about to release proftpd 1.2.8 final and RC2 is in unstable ATM
and
this is what I'm gonna do, unless someone
26 matches
Mail list logo
