On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 10:23:48PM -0500, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: Okay,
Vasi and I have gotten the lame -dev and dependency mess cleaned up in
10.3, and I cleaned up the atk1 BDOnly mess in 10.3. Should 10.2-gcc3
get the same treatment, or is that tree not going into the bindist?
dan
--
Daniel Ma
On Mar 2, 2004, at 8:47 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Is bioperl-pm581 ready to go to stable? (i.e., are all the
dependencies
already in stable?)
No, these still need to be moved (last time I checked they weren't). I
have emailed the maintainers.
graph-pm
heap-pm
xml-node-pm
text-shellwords-pm
The fink .info file for LAME does mention a possible problem with a patent,
not a copyright, regarding commercial distribution of encoders.
To the extent that this applies to LAME, it seems to me that the license
isn't free.
But I'm no expert on this, which is why I want someone who is active
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
David R. Morrison wrote:
Alexander Strange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LAME should not be included in the binary distribution, unless you feel
like buying Fink an unlimited MP3 license (distribution of decoders is
OK, or at least not actively a
Alexander Strange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LAME should not be included in the binary distribution, unless you feel
> like buying Fink an unlimited MP3 license (distribution of decoders is
> OK, or at least not actively acted upon, but distributing encoders is
> not allowed; see http://mp3li
Koen,
Is bioperl-pm581 ready to go to stable? (i.e., are all the dependencies
already in stable?) Under my proposed new policy, we wouldn't want the
package called "bioperl-pm" in the long run, anyway, and virtually all
10.3 users are going to be using perl 5.8.1. So moving bioperl-pm581
to sta
On Mar 1, 2004, at 3:38 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
SplitOff: <<
Package: %N-shlibs
Replaces: %N
<<
SplitOff2: <<
Package: %N-dev
Replaces: %N (<= 3.93.1-10)
<<
Should SplitOff:Replaces:%N also have versioning? Otherwise it doesn't
make much sense.
That's true. It seems lame-shlibs has had that for
On Mar 1, 2004, at 3:33 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
Did you take the approach I was going to do, or something else? Either
way, if you want additional eyes looking it over before committing,
post it here (if it's short:) or email me. Or commit it and we'll all
just see it in fink-commits...
dan
LAME
On Feb 29, 2004, at 4:21 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
So I'm removing bioperl-pm from stable for now, and suggeesting that
the
various dependencies of the unstable version need to be fixed up before
it can be moved to stable.
It turns out that bioperl-pm depends on many perlmodules which only
h
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:29:40PM -0500, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
> >>The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have
> >>both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib
> >>links in %N which is BDOnly.
>
> I have a fixed version of lame that I have been us
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:29:40PM -0500, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
> >>The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have
> >>both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib
> >>links in %N which is BDOnly.
>
> I have a fixed version of lame that I have been us
On Feb 29, 2004, at 4:21 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
So I'm removing bioperl-pm from stable for now, and suggeesting that
the
various dependencies of the unstable version need to be fixed up before
it can be moved to stable.
Thanks,
I have notified the maintainers of io-string-pm and xml-write
Koen van der Drift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bioperl-pm (and versioned ones) as well, but then all the perlmodules
> it depends on need to be moved too.
Well, there are some problems here.
For example, bioperl-pm560 depends on xml-writer-pm, but xml-writer-pm is
a placeholder package, and it
Hi,
These can be moved to stable:
graph-pm
heap-pm
text-shellwords-pm
xml-node-pm (+ versioned ones)
emboss
emboss-kaptain
kaptain
bioperl-pm (and versioned ones) as well, but then all the perlmodules
it depends on need to be moved too.
thanks,
- Koen.
On Feb 28, 2004, at 5:24 PM, David R.
The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have
both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib
links in %N which is BDOnly.
I have a fixed version of lame that I have been using privately for the
past while. I sent it to Sylvain, either he's too busy or m
"Daniel E. Macks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The packages for lame and atk1 do not follow shlibs policy. They have
> both userland run-time programs and compile-time headers and .dylib
> links in %N which is BDOnly.
>
> Probably the easiest solution is to move the compile stuff into a new
> BDO
David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I plan to start creating a binary release for 10.3 in about a week.
>
> If you are aware of any of your packages in the 10.3/stable tree which are
> *not* suitable for binary release, please either fix them or remove them
> from that tree.
The package
17 matches
Mail list logo
