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 als
At 21:15 Uhr -0500 14.02.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>What I think is that instead of all this files business, we ought to
>simply allow InstallScript in SplitOffs, then all that would be
>needed is a few different install scripts, and very little extra
>perl code
Actually, the "Files" field is
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
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-shlib
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 u
[...]
>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 fash
