Dave,
If you intend to allow lammpi and lammpi2 to coexist, then files
will have to be moved in the old lammpi package. Specifically you will
have to duplicate what I did for the new lammpi and openmpi packages
where the mpicc, mpic++ and mpif77 compilers have been converted into
symlinks which
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Dave,
> I understand how shared libraries are linked and acutely
> aware that the dpkg/apt-get in fink is brain-dead in regard to
> providing the appropriate shared library dependency information
> compared to Debian.
On the contrary. Darw
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 02:52:49PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Dave,
> I understand how shared libraries are linked and acutely
> aware that the dpkg/apt-get in fink is brain-dead in regard to
> providing the appropriate shared library dependency information
> compared to Debian. The reason t
Dave,
One other observation as to why lammpi is somewhat of a special
case. Currently in fink 10.4 stable, lammpi only builds for powerpc
because it BuildDepends on g77. As part of the revamping of the lammpi
package, I changed the BuildDepends of gfortran so that we could have
a lammpi package
Dave,
I understand how shared libraries are linked and acutely
aware that the dpkg/apt-get in fink is brain-dead in regard to
providing the appropriate shared library dependency information
compared to Debian. The reason that the lammpi shared libraries
are moved is to duplicate the approach
Dear Fink developers,
I've just added the first fink package to provide 64bit libraries, to
the 10.4 tree only. The new package is called gmp-64bit, and it has
several new features which I'm going to suggest should become a
standard part of fink. I suggest that appending -64bit to the name
Jack,
Let me try to explain this again. It has nothing to do with software
built outside of fink, it has only to do with the way that the fink
packaging system works.
I'm going to explain this slowly, since we are miscommunicating, so
please be patient and read the whole thing! In fact, t
Dave,
Renaming the package at this point would likely cause more
far breakage than it would resolve. There are only a couple of
packages that use lammpi currently and they have all been
version bumped to required the newer packaging. If we rename
the the new lammpi, we would have forcibly regre
On Jul 20, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Chris,
> If I understand fink correctly, adding...
>
> Replaces: lammpi (<< 7.1.2-1000)
>
> ...after...
>
> BuildConflicts: lammpi (<< 7.1.2-1000), lammpi-shlibs (<<
> 7.1.2-1000), lammpi-dev
> Conflicts: lammpi (<< 7.1.2-1000), lammpi-shli
Chris,
If I understand fink correctly, adding...
Replaces: lammpi (<< 7.1.2-1000)
...after...
BuildConflicts: lammpi (<< 7.1.2-1000), lammpi-shlibs (<< 7.1.2-1000),
lammpi-dev
Conflicts: lammpi (<< 7.1.2-1000), lammpi-shlibs (<< 7.1.2-1000), lammpi-dev
(<< 7.1.2-1000)
for the openmpi pac
On Jul 19, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Would it be possible to somehow modify fink to handle the
> following
> case. When I created the openmpi package and modified the lammpi to
> co-exist with it, I ran into a limitation of fink. If a user has
> already installed the previous
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 19, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Conflicts: lammpi (<< 7.1.2-1000), lammpi-shlibs (<< 7.1.2-1000),
> lammpi-dev (<< 7.1.2-1000)
add a replaces: line with the packages/versions that it shares files
with.
- -chris zubrzycki
- -
12 matches
Mail list logo
