[Fink-devel] mozilla
Reinstalling the December 2001 Developer Tools, and asking fink to rebuild mozilla, did the trick on the remaining computer where it did not install before. === Jan de Leeuw; Professor and Chair, UCLA Department of Statistics; US mail: 9432 Boelter Hall, Box 951554, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1554 phone (310)-825-9550; fax (310)-206-5658; email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] homepage: http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~deleeuw No matter where you go, there you are. --- Buckaroo Banzai http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~deleeuw/sounds/nomatter.au ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Evolution
Is anyone currently working on porting Evolution? In reading the archives, it appears that it's been attempted before, but I've no idea of it's current state. I was thinking of working on that, but this'd be my first OS X port (it's also been a while since I've other than dabbled in C/C++). If someone is already working on Evolution, is there another package that someone no longer has time for that might be able to hand off to me? I'd rather not duplicate work and if I could continue a work in progress, I figure it could be easier than starting from scratch... Much appreciated! Cheers! Micah Modell -- Senior Developer Tallán http://www.csh.rit.edu/~micah AIM: MicahModell It is not noble to be better than others. It is noble to be better than your former self. ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] system-ghostscript
David: I would vote no. The reason I never did this (even though I was asked to several times) is exactly the one you mentioned - these system-foo packages that install symlinks are very inelegant and easily broken. I think we should only do it in those cases (like tetex and XFree86) where the packages are huge, and very painful to install twice. I don't think ghostscript falls into that category (my ghostscript6 deb file is under 2mb). -Jeff On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, David R. Morrison wrote: > I have written a system-ghostscript package, but I am undecided about > whether it should be included in fink or not. > > As some of you know, there is a widely-used teTeX distribution (which > accompanies the program TeXShop), and we support this as an alternative > with fink's system-tetex package. The installer which is used for this > teTeX distribution also installs a copy of ghostscript 6.01 in /usr/local, > and there have been periodic requests from users for a system-ghostscript > package that recognizes this installation. > > The package I wrote sets up lots of symbolic links: each of the executables > is individually linked from its location in /usr/local/bin to /sw/bin; > each of the man pages is individually linked from its location in > /usr/local/man/man1 to /sw/share/man/man1; and the rest of ghostscript > is linked directory by directory from /usr/local/share/ghostscript to > appropriate places in the fink hierarchy. > > This would certainly be convenient for users who have installed teTeX > and ghostscript together. The question is, though: is this setting a > bad precedent? We certainly don't want to have lots of fink packages > which set up symbolic links to things that were installed within > /usr/local by some other installation method. > > I won't submit the package until I've gotten some feedback on this. > > -- Dave > > > ___ > Fink-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel > -- Jeffrey S. Whitaker Phone : (303)497-6313 Meteorologist FAX: (303)497-6449 NOAA/OAR/CDC R/CDC1Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] 325 BroadwayWeb: www.cdc.noaa.gov/~jsw Boulder, CO, USA 80303-3328 Office : Skaggs Research Cntr 1D-124 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: mozilla
I think I can explain what is happening during the post-installation. One of the binaries which was compiled during the building of the package is executed, which is supposed to configure mozilla. However, it crashes, so the post-install script fails (with a not very informative message). If the .deb file you are installing from was built with the October 2001 Developer Tools, then that binary file is bad and installation will fail on any machine. Do you have a .deb file which was built with the December 2001 Developer Tools, and which fails to install? -- Dave Jan de Leeuw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> write: > Just to add to the confusion, I get the error below on my powerbook > and I do NOT get this error on my Cube. I USED to get it > on my G4 (dual 1Ghz), but suddenly, a couple of days ago, I did NOT get > the error any more, and mozilla installed on that machine. > > All these machines run the december developer tools -- so I would be very > surprised if that was the reason. Also, everything compiles and links > fine, it's > just the post-installation script that acts up. My guess is that it is > some > subtle differences in the fink installations (what is there, what isn't > there) > on the various machines. > > On Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 12:54 PM, fink-devel- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > dpkg -i /sw/fink/dists/stable/main/binary-darwin- > > powerpc/web/mozilla_0.9.8-1_darwin-powerpc.deb > > (Reading database ... 55675 files and directories currently > > installed.) > > Unpacking mozilla (from .../mozilla_0.9.8-1_darwin-powerpc.deb) ... > > Setting up mozilla (0.9.8-1) ... > > dpkg: error processing mozilla (--install): > > subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 138 > > Errors were encountered while processing: > > mozilla > > ### dpkg failed, exit code 1 > > Failed: can't install package mozilla-0.9.8-1 > > ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] system-ghostscript
I have written a system-ghostscript package, but I am undecided about whether it should be included in fink or not. As some of you know, there is a widely-used teTeX distribution (which accompanies the program TeXShop), and we support this as an alternative with fink's system-tetex package. The installer which is used for this teTeX distribution also installs a copy of ghostscript 6.01 in /usr/local, and there have been periodic requests from users for a system-ghostscript package that recognizes this installation. The package I wrote sets up lots of symbolic links: each of the executables is individually linked from its location in /usr/local/bin to /sw/bin; each of the man pages is individually linked from its location in /usr/local/man/man1 to /sw/share/man/man1; and the rest of ghostscript is linked directory by directory from /usr/local/share/ghostscript to appropriate places in the fink hierarchy. This would certainly be convenient for users who have installed teTeX and ghostscript together. The question is, though: is this setting a bad precedent? We certainly don't want to have lots of fink packages which set up symbolic links to things that were installed within /usr/local by some other installation method. I won't submit the package until I've gotten some feedback on this. -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: Fink-devel digest, Vol 1 #387 - 4 msgs
Just to add to the confusion, I get the error below on my powerbook and I do NOT get this error on my Cube. I USED to get it on my G4 (dual 1Ghz), but suddenly, a couple of days ago, I did NOT get the error any more, and mozilla installed on that machine. All these machines run the december developer tools -- so I would be very surprised if that was the reason. Also, everything compiles and links fine, it's just the post-installation script that acts up. My guess is that it is some subtle differences in the fink installations (what is there, what isn't there) on the various machines. On Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 12:54 PM, fink-devel- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > dpkg -i /sw/fink/dists/stable/main/binary-darwin- > powerpc/web/mozilla_0.9.8-1_darwin-powerpc.deb > (Reading database ... 55675 files and directories currently > installed.) > Unpacking mozilla (from .../mozilla_0.9.8-1_darwin-powerpc.deb) ... > Setting up mozilla (0.9.8-1) ... > dpkg: error processing mozilla (--install): > subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 138 > Errors were encountered while processing: > mozilla > ### dpkg failed, exit code 1 > Failed: can't install package mozilla-0.9.8-1 > === Jan de Leeuw; Professor and Chair, UCLA Department of Statistics; US mail: 9432 Boelter Hall, Box 951554, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1554 phone (310)-825-9550; fax (310)-206-5658; email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] homepage: http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~deleeuw No matter where you go, there you are. --- Buckaroo Banzai http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~deleeuw/sounds/nomatter.au ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] about corrupted binary of mozilla
Hi Masanori. Before yesterday, I was using the October Developer Tools, and I was unable to build a working mozilla. Now I have installed the December 2001 Developer Tools, and I rebuilt mozilla. Everything works! So I think you have found the solution to the problem. I know that somebody else responded that for them, mozilla didn't build correctly even with December 2001 Developer Tools installed. Perhaps we should urge them to try reinstalling the 12/2001 Developer Tools, and then rebuild mozilla. -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
