[Fink-devel] Re: experimental/chris01/finkinfo/10.3 apr.info,NONE,1.1 apr-ssl.info,1.2,1.3

2004-03-30 Thread TheSin
no they stay in the -dev pkg and the -dev pkg, for apache2 I'm thinking of moving it though since it's needed for module installs in postinst scripts so even with deb installs it should be present and you can't depend on the -dev pkg. --- TS http://southofheaven.org Chaos is the beginning and

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: experimental/chris01/finkinfo/10.3 apr.info,NONE,1.1 apr-ssl.info,1.2,1.3

2004-03-30 Thread TheSin
Correction, it uses arp-config your right, then I'll have to add a new split -common or something and -dev will need to depend on it, pkgs can't depend on -dev and binaries don't belong in -shlibs which is meant to be a switchable pkg. --- TS http://southofheaven.org Chaos is the beginning and

[Fink-devel] gimp-app

2004-03-30 Thread Martin Costabel
Has anyone had a look at http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/ ? Did this guy ask what the Fink team thinks about such rip-offs? To my untrained eye at least, this kind of binary-only distribution looks like a flagrant violation of the GPL. -- Martin

[Fink-devel] new installers

2004-03-30 Thread David R. Morrison
Release candidates for the new installers are up at: http://www.cgtp.duke.edu/~drm/Fink-0.6.3-Installer.dmg http://www.cgtp.duke.edu/~drm/Fink-0.7.0-Installer.dmg Many thanks to Martin Costabel, who tested earlier release candidates and found problems (fixed in the new ones). If anyone

Re: [Fink-devel] gimp-app

2004-03-30 Thread Alexander Strange
On Mar 30, 2004, at 6:07 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: Has anyone had a look at http://gimp-app.sourceforge.net/ ? Did this guy ask what the Fink team thinks about such rip-offs? To my untrained eye at least, this kind of binary-only distribution looks like a flagrant violation of the GPL. The Gimp

Re: [Fink-devel] gimp-app

2004-03-30 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Mar 30, 2004, at 20:56, Alexander Strange wrote: The Gimp 2.0 isn't a ripoff because I haven't finished the package yet. He does provide the original Gimp sources, but if the application bundle contains anything else it would need to be published as well (but it's not a violation until

[Fink-devel] Re: experimental/rangerrick/common/main/finkinfo/utils dvdauthor.info,NONE,1.1 dvdauthor.patch,NONE,1.1

2004-03-30 Thread TheSin
check cvs it's already there. --- TS http://southofheaven.org Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 30-Mar-04, at 7:50 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: Update of /cvsroot/fink/experimental/rangerrick/common/main/finkinfo/utils In directory

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: experimental/rangerrick/common/main/finkinfo/utils dvdauthor.info,NONE,1.1 dvdauthor.patch,NONE,1.1

2004-03-30 Thread TheSin
I prefer them or files, the normall re apply and I can see why and where i did things better cause it's easier to comment em...and now with the same filenames I even get history on them :) Not to mention the reusability of them :D --- TS http://southofheaven.org Chaos is the beginning and end,

Re: [Fink-devel] gimp-app

2004-03-30 Thread Martin Costabel
Kyle Moffett wrote: On Mar 30, 2004, at 20:56, Alexander Strange wrote: The Gimp 2.0 isn't a ripoff because I haven't finished the package yet. He does provide the original Gimp sources, but if the application bundle contains anything else it would need to be published as well (but it's not a

Re: [Fink-devel] new installers

2004-03-30 Thread Ben Hines
On Mar 30, 2004, at 3:36 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: Release candidates for the new installers are up at: http://www.cgtp.duke.edu/~drm/Fink-0.6.3-Installer.dmg http://www.cgtp.duke.edu/~drm/Fink-0.7.0-Installer.dmg The PDB will need some code changes to handle the new release and