Is this not against fink policy?
DescPackaging:
Don't mind the following result:
$ fink -v validate xinitrc.info
Warning: Patch file appears to contain a hardcoded /sw. (xinitrc.patch)
You must *manually* ensure the prefix cleanness.
There are always sed-based methods to automate setting up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Henninger wrote:
| Is this not against fink policy?
| DescPackaging:
| Don't mind the following result:
| $ fink -v validate xinitrc.info
| Warning: Patch file appears to contain a hardcoded /sw. (xinitrc.patch)
|
| You must *manually* ensure
It was a new package submission where I told the author that they needed
to change the /sw's to %p in some manner, and suggested looking at
dpkg.info as an example of patching the patch, but the author then said
there was no need to do that and that they added a DescPackaging line to
indicate that
I went ahead and switched libnids to libnet1.0 - and packaged dsniff,
which was not in fink yet. I dont think a lot of folks have been using
libnids especially since dsniff wasn't in fink, and the libnids was
installing directly into /sw which is very bad. So i fixed that as
well.
Anyway, try
Thanks a lot. I thought nobody had seen that e-mail.
dsniff is in dports, but I've *never* been able to get it to work
without manual hackery, so I never got around to packaging it, although
I had almost working packages in the tracker a year (or more?) ago.
Does it compile on a clean fink
Daniel Henninger wrote:
Update of /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/sci
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv927
Added Files:
singular.info
Log Message:
Added per tracker id 1109172.
[]
BuildConflicts: broken-gcc, singular-factory, singular-libfac
Did you contact
