On 2004/04/21, at 5:23 PM, Etsushi Kato wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@@(sed 's/^LIBR =.*/LIBR =
-framework R/' \
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@@(sed 's/^LIBR =.*/LIBR =
-F$(prefix) -framework R/' \
Oops. Since $(prefix) contains slash, this should be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
why not just make a new tree on the main, crypto level and call it
native or dotapp ?? So it's easily added and removed from the pkg
listings.
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 18-Apr-04, at 2:10 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
I agree
All: I'm working on a new r-base package which will include R built as a
framework and R.app (in addition to the command line X11 version of R). I
went back and re-read the thread on .apps in Fink, but it didn't seem like
there was any consensus on the issue of whether to install symlinks or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jeff Whitaker wrote:
All: I'm working on a new r-base package which will include R built as a
framework and R.app (in addition to the command line X11 version of R). I
went back and re-read the thread on .apps in Fink, but it didn't seem like
Jeff Whitaker wrote:
All: I'm working on a new r-base package which will include R built as a
framework and R.app (in addition to the command line X11 version of R). I
went back and re-read the thread on .apps in Fink, but it didn't seem like
there was any consensus on the issue of whether to
I agree with Martin that we should accept this as the new policy, but for
now confine these packages to the unstable tree to give some time to make
sure we don't need to modify the policy further.
Martin: I was probably the one who suggested in the earlier discussion that
the symlink for the .app
Martin Costabel wrote:
Jeff Whitaker wrote:
[]
BTW: python and tcltk could be packaged to do this as well.
There is one point with Python, but also with tcl, probably: Where does
one put the site-packages afterwards? I mean all the modules from *-py23
packages. In Apple's philosophy, they are
