At 10:11 Uhr +1100 18.02.2002, David Stanaway wrote:
On Friday, February 15, 2002, at 08:31 PM, Max Horn wrote:
IMHO, it is cleaner to have the Files field, splitoffs really
shouldn't do much more than to contain some files that used to be
in the master package. Using files, we also gurantee
[...]
3) File format to represent splitoffs
-
A slightly extend version of my original demo. Note that the
Splitoff: field is nonstandard since it mixes the single multi
line formats.
Peter just suggested how we can do it nicely in a compatible fashion,
At 18:40 Uhr -0500 14.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
There is another aspect of this which has not yet been mentioned.
When fink is analyzing dependencies, it (apparently, since I can't read
perl) creates a list of existing .info files which it can suggest it
will build in order to meet unmet
At 19:28 Uhr -0500 14.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
I like the
SplitOff:
Package: %n-shlibs
style. But I have a question about the syntax: will the entries within
a SplitOff section be allowed to use multi-line format themselves? e.g.
SplitOff:
Package: %n-shlibs
DescDetail:
At 19:58 Uhr -0500 14.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
Two more comments for now:
1) InfoDocs also needs to be on the allowed list, since we can't control
where the .info files will be installed. Similarly, UpdatePod.
And PostInstScript, PostRmScript, PreInstScript, PreRmScript.
2)
