On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:51:36AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Daniel,
>I noticed that when --program-suffix=-fsf-4.5 is invoked
> that the man1 and man3 manpage names are automatically appended
> with the -fsf-4.5 suffix but not the info pages. I figured this
> was an omission so I completed
Daniel,
I noticed that when --program-suffix=-fsf-4.5 is invoked
that the man1 and man3 manpage names are automatically appended
with the -fsf-4.5 suffix but not the info pages. I figured this
was an omission so I completed the renaming for man7 and the
info pages. Also, now that multiple gcc4x-
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:00:11PM -0400, Daniel Macks wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:35:06PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >
> > # Rename info files with -fsf-4.5 suffix.
> ># Add symlinks for info files under old names.
> > SplitOff2: <<
> > Package: %N-compiler
> > Files: <<
> > sha
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 03:35:06PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> # Rename info files with -fsf-4.5 suffix.
># Add symlinks for info files under old names.
> SplitOff2: <<
> Package: %N-compiler
> Files: <<
> share/info/*-fsf-4.5.info
> <<
> <<
> InfoDocs: cp-tools-fsf-4.5.info cpp-fsf-4
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:40:35PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> > JF,
> > Okay. Untested gcc45-x86_64.info with a gcc45-compiler
> > splitoff. Still needs the libffi update-alternatives.
>
> To me, this one looks OK (untested, of course), contrary to the
> description i
Jack Howarth wrote:
> JF,
> Okay. Untested gcc45-x86_64.info with a gcc45-compiler
> splitoff. Still needs the libffi update-alternatives.
To me, this one looks OK (untested, of course), contrary to the
description in one of dmacks' latest messages (the one with *1, *2 etc),
which even after r
JF,
Okay. Untested gcc45-x86_64.info with a gcc45-compiler
splitoff. Still needs the libffi update-alternatives.
Jack
Info2: <<
Package: gcc45
Version: 4.5.0
Revision: 1001
Source: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-%v/gcc-%v.tar.bz2
Source-MD5: ff27b7c4a5d5060c8a8543a44abca31f
On 27 Apr 2010, at 18:50, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:20:41PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Apr 2010, at 18:07, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens
>>> wrote:
>> I don't see why..
>>> It's sort of like
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:50:43PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:20:41PM +0200, Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
> >
> > On 27 Apr 2010, at 18:07, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 27 Apr 2010, at
On 27 Apr 2010, at 18:50, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Bascially, I would have to have...
>
> SplitOff: <<
> Package: %N-bin
> Files: <<
>bin
No bin ; this the point : bin contains only symlinks, which go into
"gcc45"
>lib
>share
> <<
JF
--
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
>
> On 27 Apr 2010, at 17:43, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > To recap, the problem with using a single package with split-off
> > strategy is that both gcc4x and gcc4x-bin would require a Conflicts/
> > Replaces on the older gcc4
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:20:41PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> On 27 Apr 2010, at 18:07, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27 Apr 2010, at 17:43, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>>
To recap, the problem with using a sin
On 27 Apr 2010, at 18:07, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Apr 2010, at 17:43, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> To recap, the problem with using a single package with split-off
>>> strategy is that both gcc4x and gcc4x-bin would r
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> On 27 Apr 2010, at 17:43, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> To recap, the problem with using a single package with split-off
>> strategy is that both gcc4x and gcc4x-bin would require a Conflicts/
>> Replaces on the older gcc4x pac
On 27 Apr 2010, at 17:43, Jack Howarth wrote:
> To recap, the problem with using a single package with split-off
> strategy is that both gcc4x and gcc4x-bin would require a Conflicts/
> Replaces on the older gcc4x packages which have overlapping files.
> This is because the older gcc4x packages
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:24:42AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> On 04/27/2010 12:08 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > I've posted test packaging for a gcc45-4.5.0-1001
> > and gcc45-compiler-4.5-1 package on fink tracking...
> >
> > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2992713&group_id=1
On 04/27/2010 12:08 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I've posted test packaging for a gcc45-4.5.0-1001
> and gcc45-compiler-4.5-1 package on fink tracking...
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2992713&group_id=17203&atid=414256
>
> The new gcc45 packaging...
>
> 1) Moves all of the
17 matches
Mail list logo
