Re: [Fink-devel] box.info, box-0.2.2.info and box-0.3.4.info

> On Sep 26, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > Daniel, > Is there any reason to maintain the box-0.2.2.info and box-0.3.4.info > packaging in the 10.9-libc++ tree? I don't see any packages currently in the > 10.9-libc++ tree with a BuildDepends on

[Fink-devel] pruning ruby packaging in 10.9-libc++ tree

Daniel, Any reason why we can't prune back the five different ruby packages in the 10.9-libc++ to just the most current ruby22 packaging? I only see a BuildConflicts on these packages in net/epic5.info and the legacy commented BuildDepends line in languages/swig.info and

[Fink-devel] box.info, box-0.2.2.info and box-0.3.4.info

Daniel, Is there any reason to maintain the box-0.2.2.info and box-0.3.4.info packaging in the 10.9-libc++ tree? I don't see any packages currently in the 10.9-libc++ tree with a BuildDepends on libboxcore0.2 or libboxcore0.3. Jack

Re: [Fink-devel] box.info, box-0.2.2.info and box-0.3.4.info

> On Sep 26, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Daniel Johnson > wrote: > > >> On Sep 26, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> >> Daniel, >> Is there any reason to maintain the box-0.2.2.info and box-0.3.4.info >> packaging in the 10.9-libc++

Re: [Fink-devel] Tested switching to new 10.9-libcxx tree

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 10:26, Daniel Johnson wrote: > > >> On Sep 25, 2015, at 1:14 PM, Alexander Hansen >> wrote: >> >> There are a couple of relatively minor hiccups: >> >> 1) You would have to use “fink selfupdate” twice: once to