At 21:15 Uhr -0500 12.03.2002, Gary Kerbaugh wrote:
Hi Max and David,
Your humble guinea pig reporting. I wanted to use PHP with
Apple's Apache and changed the .info ConfigureParams to use the
preinstalled apxs with the following parameter:
--with-apxs=/usr/sbin/apxs. I don't see that
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. glib-shlibs anybody?
Max
--
---
Max Horn
Software Developer
email: mailto:[EMAIL
I installed the mail reader Mutt from cvs - I'm using it to send this
message. My previous experience with Mutt was with Redhat RPMs. There
are some helper programs normally available, that are used with Mutt -
they are actually called by some of the options preinstalled in the
Mutt configuration
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
Oh-- OK-- I see the problem. The patch file supplied with wxpython-wxgtk
makes the assumption that the glib include path is
@PREFIX@/lib/glib/include.
+includes = ['src',
+ '/usr/X11R6/include',
+ '@PREFIX@/lib/glib/include']
It looks like it could be patched
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
I can verify that php-4.1.2-1 will not build if the old version of gd is
installed rather than the new version. I recommend updating it to say
BuildDepends: gd (= 1.8.4-6)
-- Dave
___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Is anyone interested in helping out on this? I'm working on cleaning
up the patches I have so that they're more correct (they're very badly
hacked up at this point, just to get everything running), but I can
give pointers on how I got this far... I just know that the issues
I'm facing now are
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
At 13:23 Uhr -0500 13.03.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
I can verify that php-4.1.2-1 will not build if the old version of gd is
installed rather than the new version. I recommend updating it to say
BuildDepends: gd (= 1.8.4-6)
OK, will fix. Since it's just a builddepends, I don't have to up
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
At 8:20 AM -0500 3/13/02, Josh Kuperman wrote:
How do I find out if I have a library installed from a prevous
program? What would it be called? Where is it? How do I need to modify
configure or make files so they can use libraries that were installed
by Mutt even if I'm compliing a program
29 matches
Mail list logo
