On 6/29/12 7:13 AM, TheSin wrote:
po4a has been removed, since I only speak en this doesn't affect me at all,
po4a = po 4 all, aka it's an i18n man/locale translator, so now both
debianutils and sensible-utils will install international man pages but I
believe they won't be translated. Not
On 6/29/12 6:14 AM, TheSin wrote:
I agree that it does not need to be essential at all, but that being said new
versions of dpkg in the future will require tex for install-info since its
being deprecated for ginstall-info upstream so maybe we need to look at debs
of debs? I'll re-work
On 6/29/12 8:38 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
On 6/29/12 6:14 AM, TheSin wrote:
I agree that it does not need to be essential at all, but that being said
new versions of dpkg in the future will require tex for install-info since
its being deprecated for ginstall-info upstream so maybe we need
Op 29-06-12 17:38, Alexander Hansen schreef:
On 6/29/12 6:14 AM, TheSin wrote:
I agree that it does not need to be essential at all, but that being said
new versions of dpkg in the future will require tex for install-info since
its being deprecated for ginstall-info upstream so maybe we need
this is a good option to explore I think.
---
TS
http://www.southofheaven.org/
Life begins and ends with chaos, live between the chaos!
On 2012-06-29, at 9:38 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
On 6/29/12 6:14 AM, TheSin wrote:
I agree that it does not need to be essential at all, but that being said
I already thought of these options, the problem would be the same problem I see
with gettext-tools, the desync in revisions with double pkgs is very misleading
and double the work. I've pretty much been working 8+ hours a day some days
24hours a day working on debian tools for fink for the
Is there any possibility that we can just disable the need for Tex by telling
some package with a configure option that it should build it's Tex docs?
-- Dave
On Jun 29, 2012, at 9:50 AM, TheSin the...@southofheaven.org wrote:
I already thought of these options, the problem would be the
Dear Fink developers,
At the time of the upgrade to 10.7, many fink -pm5123 packages were limited
to Distribution: 10.7 only.
Since we will make perl 5.1.23 available in 10.8, that restriction is no
longer necessary or appropriate.
On behalf of the fink-core team, I plan to alter such
On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Dear Fink developers,
At the time of the upgrade to 10.7, many fink -pm5123 packages were limited
to Distribution: 10.7 only.
Since we will make perl 5.1.23 available in 10.8, that restriction is no
longer necessary or appropriate.
On
On 6/29/2012 1:13 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Dear Fink developers,
At the time of the upgrade to 10.7, many fink -pm5123 packages were limited
to Distribution: 10.7 only.
Since we will make perl 5.1.23 available in 10.8, that restriction
On Jun 29, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser wrote:
On 6/29/2012 1:13 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Dear Fink developers,
At the time of the upgrade to 10.7, many fink -pm5123 packages were
limited to Distribution: 10.7 only.
So I'm not sure how but the old dpkg seemed to not check version of
fink-virtuals, the patch I'm using is pretty much identical and it should have
checked, but somehow it allowed things to install that I can't get in my new
dpkg.
when trying to install test-simple-pm5123 for example, dpkg is
My recollection is that we hacked the dpkg code to allow unversioned virtuals
at the time we introduced virtual pkgs.
-- Dave
On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:01 PM, TheSin wrote:
So I'm not sure how but the old dpkg seemed to not check version of
fink-virtuals, the patch I'm using is pretty much
okay, I'll reuse the same code if we are okay with that, thanks drm no one in
irc knew and I want to fix my version of dpkg, I'll comment the patch so the
next version we'll remember.
---
TS
http://www.southofheaven.org/
Life begins and ends with chaos, live between the chaos!
On 2012-06-29, at
14 matches
Mail list logo
