On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:20:31 +0900
Masanori Sekino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll rewrite GTK2/GNOME2 packages and put them into CVS again.
Renamed packages are in CVS now. They are named glib2, atk1, pango1,
gtk+2, linc1 and libidl2.
New packages orbit2 and libart2 are also available.
One more things,
New packages does not replaces old one automatically.
Please remove old packages before installation.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:23:05 +0900
Masanori Sekino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Renamed packages are in CVS now. They are named glib2, atk1, pango1,
gtk+2, linc1 and libidl2.
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Would be nice if we had a package for glib 2.0 - ideally, it would be
able to coexist to the current glib, though I am not sure how hard it
would be exactly.
All of the GNOME libraries are supposed to be set up so that you can
At 8:49 Uhr -0500 13.03.2002, Dan Winship wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Would be nice if we had a package for glib 2.0 - ideally, it would
be able to coexist to the current glib, though I am not sure how
hard it would be exactly.
All of the GNOME libraries
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:50:45 +0100
Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS.
Hm, don't see them there.
Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can.
Very nice! But I wonder, do they coexist with the old packages?
They are coexisting
okay just testing it right now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can.
¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·.,
Justin F. Hallett - Systems Analyst
Phone: (780)-408-3094
Fax: (780)-454-3200
E-Mail: [EMAIL
That's not completly true. Some files are installed by both, like
glib-config, etc..
No, glib 2.0 uses pkgconfig.
If there are any files that both try to install, it's a bug and should
be reported to bugzilla.gnome.org. You're supposed to be able to have
both glib 1.2.10 and glib 2.0
also what is in the -common
and are we gonna use -common and -base, this a general question for
splitoff.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nice. Now one more question: why are the packages named like
glib2-0 and not just glib2 ?
¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·.,
Justin F. Hallett - Systems
-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages.
fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time, but if
they contains a same file, /etc/foo.conf for example, they can't
coexists. In this case, foo-common package contains /etc/foo.conf
and all the fooN-shlibs depends on it.
OH we've been using -conf. We need a standard I think. I like -common
and -base but those are debians anyhow that is just babling we need a
standard.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages.
fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time,
At 2:52 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote:
Libraries in glib2 are named:
libglib-2.0.la
libglib-2.0.dylib
libglib-2.0.0.dylib
libglib-2.0.0.0.0.dylib
So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0
and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20.
I don't get that logic.
At 12:25 Uhr -0500 13.03.2002, Dan Winship wrote:
That's not completly true. Some files are installed by both, like
glib-config, etc..
No, glib 2.0 uses pkgconfig.
If there are any files that both try to install, it's a bug and
should be reported to bugzilla.gnome.org. You're supposed to be
At 3:02 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote:
-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages.
fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time, but if
they contains a same file, /etc/foo.conf for example, they can't
coexists. In this case, foo-common package contains
We've had a package called fvwm-common since last July or August, which
both fvwm and fvwm2 depend on. It works in exactly the same way -- all
of the overlapping files go there. I borrowed the naming from debian
at the time. I think we can stick with that naming convention.
-- Dave
still waiting for Max to comment. All i'm saying is that we all need to
use the same convension. Or should I think.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-conf is a good naming, if it contains only config files. but shlibs
packages may share these files:
- config files
- locale files
- modules
- program
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100
Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0
and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20.
[...]
Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ?
Yes.
I mean, what is bad about the
At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100
Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0
and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20.
[...]
Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote:
At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100
Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ?
Yes.
He, if we ever get to that version, I will eat my hat
At 13:25 Uhr -0600 13.03.2002, Chris Devers wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote:
At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100
Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ?
Yes.
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote:
At 13:25 Uhr -0600 13.03.2002, Chris Devers wrote:
In a world where Emacs can be on version 21
How old is emacs? How big is the percentage of all open source
projects with such a high version number? Heck, how big is the
percentage with a version
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:21:17 +0100
Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, what is bad about the package name glib2? Assuming there will
be a version 2.2, it will be glib2-2.2
If say 2.4 was binary incompatible, we could make a glib24-2.4
package, however, I strongly doubt that
Oh very few, I admit. Of the ones that I can think of a version number at
the moment where that number is greater than 2, I can only come up with
Perl, Vim, Mozilla, and Emacs. And of those, three of them are at or near
version six (though Mozilla started at 6, and Perl's not there yet).
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:45:14 +0100
Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
glib doesn't use a . but a -, however this is completly valid,
various other packages do it this way (maybe the Shlibs policy file
should be changed to mention that).
[...]
No, they mean the same, at least the way I
23 matches
Mail list logo
