-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 28, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>It would appear that using tar 1.16 in fink is a really bad idea...
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/amanda-users@amanda.org/msg37008.html
>
> I would also note that Fedora development is still usi
It would appear that using tar 1.16 in fink is a really bad idea...
http://www.mail-archive.com/amanda-users@amanda.org/msg37008.html
I would also note that Fedora development is still using 1.15.1 for
tar.
Jack
---
I just want to re-emphasize that what I said before was that
Spotlight was NOT the problem (I guessed wrongly that it might be,
and instructed it to stay out of /sw, and that did not help).
I also found creating a new /sw did not solve the problem.
The tar explanation strikes me as more plau
> Spotlight does not touch *.build directories. That's why fink.build was
> introduced in the first place. Maybe the people who have this weird
> error changed their build directory to something other than fink.build?
Martin,
Ahhh... [me: starts renaming all his project build directories]
David Fang wrote:
[]
> Perhaps something about Spotlight disabling could be added to the
> FAQ? It makes a somewhat noticeable improvement on slow machines. I'd
> recommend disabling for at least the src/fink.build directories.
Spotlight does not touch *.build directories. That's why fink.
> So if I understand all of the comments so far, the problem may
> be avoidable with an older tar but even that produces warnings in
> fink. If the hypothesis of Spotlight indexing blocking files
> is correct, perhaps the answer is for the fink developers to add
> code to fink that stops and st
So if I understand all of the comments so far, the problem may
be avoidable with an older tar but even that produces warnings in
fink. If the hypothesis of Spotlight indexing blocking files
is correct, perhaps the answer is for the fink developers to add
code to fink that stops and starts the S
> > dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070124
> > /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/binary-darwin-i386/languages
> > dpkg-deb: building package `gcc42' in
> > `/sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/binary-darwin-i386/languages/
> > gcc42_4.1.-20070124_darwin-i386.deb'.
> > tar:
> > ./sw/lib/gcc4.2/include/c++/4
reat, FWIW.
Bill
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:38:02 -0500
From: Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fink-devel] gcc42 mixed result
To: David Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; c
On 1/27/07, Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David,
>I ran into the same problem a month or so back and
> had to nuke my fink installation to resolve it.
In case you run into this again, all you have to do is delete the
partially-created .deb file and rebuild. (I have seen this a few
> > dpkg-deb -b root-gcc42-4.1.-20070124
> > /sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/binary-darwin-i386/languages
> > dpkg-deb: building package `gcc42' in
> > `/sw/fink/10.4/unstable/main/binary-darwin-i386/languages/
> > gcc42_4.1.-20070124_darwin-i386.deb'.
> > tar:
> > ./sw/lib/gcc4.2/include/c++/4
Hi,
On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:10 PM, David Fang wrote:
> Hi,
> First of all, thank you again, Jack, for putting forth an
> unrelenting effort in packaging up gcc-4.2 (prerelease), I've been
> following along for months now. I have some good news and bad news to
> report. The good news first:
David,
I ran into the same problem a month or so back and
had to nuke my fink installation to resolve it. It may
be that the gcc42 packaging is exposing some latent bug
in fink. I've built the same packaging almost daily for
the last couple of months and the problem hasn't come
back. Hopefully t
13 matches
Mail list logo
