Your fink selfupdate is set to take things from "point releases", which
are made every few months. If you want to change to a more rapidly
updating fink, run the command "fink selfupdate-rsync".
> You already have the package descriptions from the latest Fink point
> release.
> (installed:0.7.0
It worked perfectly for me, adding the line which Daniel Macks suggested.
(You only want "Replaces", you do *not* want "Conflicts".)
Just to be clear, here is how the dependency section looked after I made
the change:
## Dependencies
##
BuildDepends: autoconf | autoconf2.5, pcre (>= 3.0-1), fink
Hi.
Just wanted you to know that your recode 3.6-7 does not work with my
configuration.
When invocing recode with [recode lat1..mac filename] I can hear a lot
of HD read/writes until I get a disk full error message. Obiviously that
has nothing to do with filesize of the input file. And I have a
Ben Hines wrote:
Revert this
erm, ok, I was out of town... why?
--
Benjamin Reed, a.k.a. RangerRick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://ranger.befunk.com/
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
isn't there a policy on taking over another's package? i just noticed
that my rzip package was updated and maintainership was changed without
so much as an email or posting to fink-devel. This make me much less
inclined to create any new packages...
I don't know how I
AIDA Shinra wrote:
If B did not directly refer any neon's symbols,
gcc -o B B.o -lA -lneon
Oh, this line is:
gcc -o B B.o -lA
Of course, not directly referring to these symbols is exceedingly rare,
and most likely doesn't account for the most common case...
--
Benjamin Reed, a.k.a. RangerRick
[E
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 11:33:20AM -0400, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Dear Fink developers,
>
> For some time, I've wanted to have a way to validate that packages are
> using the BuildDependsOnly field correctly. The test I want to employ
> is this: if the package installs anything into /sw/includ
Daniel Macks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian Packaging Manual 5.7 "User-defined fields" (though as I read it
> is self-contradictory), suggests we could maybe pass the BDO flag in
> the control file? If so, that would certainly be a cleaner solution than:
>
> > For each package, at build time
David R. Morrison wrote:
Daniel Macks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Debian Packaging Manual 5.7 "User-defined fields" (though as I read it
is self-contradictory), suggests we could maybe pass the BDO flag in
the control file? If so, that would certainly be a cleaner solution than:
For each package,
The CustomMirror example shows an incorrect heredoc syntax. It opens
with << and closes with >>. Should close with <<.
This can be seen at
http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/packaging/reference.php?phpLang=en --
right under the "Unpack Phase" subtitle.
regards,
martin
--
--
Martin Langhoff http
Le 2 juin 2004, à 3:21, Martin Langhoff (NZL) a écrit :
The CustomMirror example shows an incorrect heredoc syntax. It opens
with << and closes with >>. Should close with <<.
This can be seen at
http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/packaging/reference.php?phpLang=en --
right under the "Unpack Phase" sub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Martin Langhoff (NZL) wrote:
| The CustomMirror example shows an incorrect heredoc syntax. It opens
| with << and closes with >>. Should close with <<.
|
And just for the record, please report such issues in the future to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank y
12 matches
Mail list logo
