At 4:17 PM -0400 5/31/02, David R. Morrison wrote:
>Just to followup one more time: Torrey, we've had a bit more discussion
>among fink developers on IRC, and it turns out that the problem which
>Justin is having with xine is related to the lack of x-shm support on
>Darwin. Somehow with the share
Just to followup one more time: Torrey, we've had a bit more discussion
among fink developers on IRC, and it turns out that the problem which
Justin is having with xine is related to the lack of x-shm support on
Darwin. Somehow with the shared libs he can get around this (I wasn't
too clear about
this is a correct statement and I agree 100% with it, my argument is
supporting the system pkgs. The problem is this statement will limit the
software we are able to port, like xine which IHMO is major port, or in
demd software. And we would not be able to provide it. I think that to
satisfy bo
Here's my opinion about this:
1) We are offering users the option of system-xfree86 or system-xtools. So
it only makes sense that we need to make sure that the Fink package works
exactly like the system-xfree86 package.
2) There are only a few other system-foo packages, and in each case we need
of course i can't remember which pkg it was now, though it might be
mplayer, and it's cause Xinerama and Xv statics are flawed on darwin that
this happens mostly, and there are instructions on how to get xfree to
make the shared versions in the install notes (accutally I think it was
xine now that
Firstly i asked about the shared libs to the Xfree team, and there was no
good reason for them being disabled, according to my replies from the list.
Secondly this would be a concern if we were making .pkg OS X style
installed that aren't managed. (i.e. kinda like rpm thought I'll give
rpms quaz
This is true, how ever the system-xfree86 pkg is flawed in other ways as
well. Since some pkgs may depend on a certain version of xfree, and since
there is no way of knowing which is install with system-xfree86. The make
a pkg management system as fink all pkgs almost need to be controlled by
fi
At 11:43 AM -0600 5/31/02, Justin Hallett wrote:
>no there isn't. Plus why would you want to revert the change? It doesn't
>hurt anything unless you try and mix to systems. hmmm...I think this
>might end up being a problem with other pkgs for the bin dist as well.
>shared libs and system pkgs a
no there isn't. Plus why would you want to revert the change? It doesn't
hurt anything unless you try and mix to systems. hmmm...I think this
might end up being a problem with other pkgs for the bin dist as well.
shared libs and system pkgs are not gonna mix well in the bin dist.
[EMAIL PROTE
At 8:38 Uhr -0600 31.05.2002, Justin Hallett wrote:
>Xinerama and Xv, in the shared lib format are *NOT* needed. They are only
>used if present. Since Xinerama and Xv are built statics in the Xfree
>build by default, and we turned them on, since I needed them for an other
>port, and Ben build th
Xinerama and Xv, in the shared lib format are *NOT* needed. They are only
used if present. Since Xinerama and Xv are built statics in the Xfree
build by default, and we turned them on, since I needed them for an other
port, and Ben build the KDE binaries from fink and the fink verion of
Xfree, t
Max Horn [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I am fully with you on this. I stated similar concerns about this in
> the past but was overruled. In any case now it's not to late to undo
> this, if we can agree on it, even with relatively little pain.
>
> However, first we need to evaluate in how far sh
At 22:12 Uhr -0700 30.05.2002, Torrey T. Lyons wrote:
>I noticed at SourceForge that Fink has announced the availability of
>KDE for Mac OS X. First I should congratulate all the hard working
>KDE-Darwin and Fink developers!
>
>My concern is that I noticed that Fink has started to distribute
>l
13 matches
Mail list logo
