[Fink-devel] libjconv 403 with wget, but not curl

FYI, on fink update-all: sylpheed needs libjconv, but: wget --non-verbose --passive-ftp http://www.kondara.org/libjconv/libjconv-2.8.1.tar.gz http://www.kondara.org/libjconv/libjconv-2.8.1.tar.gz: 08:30:09 ERROR 403: Forbidden. ### wget failed, exit code 1 Downloading the file "libjconv-2.8.1.tar

Re: [Fink-devel] Compiling Apache 2.0

I have got Apache 2.0.35 installed and running locally, and it works pretty well. The only gripe I have is that I am unable to build any of the modules shared. Grr. Basically, something goes wrong in the build process, some step is missed, so the .so files are not created. I think this may

Re: [Fink-devel] Fink 0.4.0 released

On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 07:37 PM, Max Horn wrote: > Fink 0.4.0 released > = > > [...] > > With Fink 0.4.0, Mac OS X 10.1 is the operating system of choice. > System 10.0 is not officially supported anymore, and if you still use > it, installing the (free) upgrade

[Fink-devel] Fink 0.4.0 released

Fink 0.4.0 released = Fink 0.4.0 was released today. The source release and the binary installer are now available for download: http://fink.sourceforge.net/download/ For more information about upgrading, visit the Upgrade Matrix: http://fink.sourceforge.net/downl

[Fink-devel] Compiling Apache 2.0

I think that something is wrong with this, but I do not know enough about the command syntax to figure this out. Can somebody please help? Building shared: mod_echo.la /bin/sh /sw/src/httpd-2.0.35/srclib/apr/libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc -g -O2 -DNO_DBM_REWRITEMAP-DDARWIN -DSIGPROCMASK

Re: [Fink-devel] Restrictive licenses - fit for stable=

Thanks Martin, that was very helpful! Max -- --- Max Horn Software Developer email: phone: (+49) 6151-494890 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourcefor

Re: [Fink-devel] Restrictive licenses - fit for stable=

At 15:05 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >Concerning revtex, I have been unable to find any discussion of licensing >either within the download or on the web site. I assume that not distributing >the binary would then be the default option. Indeed. Maybe somebody can contact them,

Re: [Fink-devel] holding back package upgrade (was: Calling mozilla)

At 9:23 PM +0200 4/17/02, Max Horn wrote: >At 11:43 Uhr -0700 17.04.2002, Ben Hines wrote: >>At 5:54 PM +1000 4/17/02, Jeremy Higgs wrote: >>> >>>I'm pretty sure dpkg (or it might be apt) does this. Through dselect, at >>>least, you can 'hold' a package, and it is simply not upgraded (version or >

Re: [Fink-devel] holding back package upgrade (was: Calling mozilla)

hi, > Just as a test case, I tried it on SDL.. chose sdl 1.2.3, and hit > "=". (hold). It showed held in dselect. Then did a fink update-all, > and sdl 1.2.4 downloaded, and... dpkg installed it right over 1.2.3. > I had assumed it would build the deb and then stop. i used to use the feature

Re: [Fink-devel] holding back package upgrade (was: Calling mozilla)

At 11:43 Uhr -0700 17.04.2002, Ben Hines wrote: >At 5:54 PM +1000 4/17/02, Jeremy Higgs wrote: >> >>I'm pretty sure dpkg (or it might be apt) does this. Through dselect, at >>least, you can 'hold' a package, and it is simply not upgraded (version or >>revision) until you 'unhold' it. >> >>[ Actual

Re: [Fink-devel] Restrictive licenses - fit for stable=

Concerning revtex, I have been unable to find any discussion of licensing either within the download or on the web site. I assume that not distributing the binary would then be the default option. -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [Fink-devel] Restrictive licenses - fit for stable=

I had a look at some of these restrictive licenses. Of course, IANAL, but who is? I would think that 4 of the licenses I saw allow distribution, for the packages: foiltex ghostscript* gnuplot revtex(?) For 5 others, it seems that distribution is not possible: povray tetex-texmf texpower xforms

Re: [Fink-devel] holding back package upgrade (was: Calling mozilla)

At 5:54 PM +1000 4/17/02, Jeremy Higgs wrote: > >I'm pretty sure dpkg (or it might be apt) does this. Through dselect, at >least, you can 'hold' a package, and it is simply not upgraded (version or >revision) until you 'unhold' it. > >[ Actually... It's dpkg. Presumably something like 'dpkg --hold

Re: [Fink-devel] Restrictive licenses - fit for stable=

At 13:30 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote: >On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: > >> At 10:22 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote: >> >On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: >> > >> >> the following packages have a "Restrictive" license: >> > >> >What is the working definition o

Re: [Fink-devel] Restrictive licenses - fit for stable=

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: > At 10:22 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote: > >On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: > > > >> the following packages have a "Restrictive" license: > > > >What is the working definition of restrictive? Non-GPL? Non-Berkeley? > >(Arguably, GPL is much m

Re: [Fink-devel] Restrictive licenses - fit for stable=

At 10:22 Uhr -0400 17.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote: >On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: > >> the following packages have a "Restrictive" license: > >What is the working definition of restrictive? Non-GPL? Non-Berkeley? >(Arguably, GPL is much more restrictive than BSD, but somehow I don't >think

Re: [Fink-devel] Apache 2.0.35

On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 10:14 AM, David R. Morrison wrote: > Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 08:02 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: >>> I would like to try to help package Apache 2.0 in Fink after I >>> get it running on my own machine, overwriting Appl

Re: [Fink-devel] holding back package upgrade (was: Callingmozilla)

On 17/4/02 5:35 PM, "Max Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 2:58 Uhr +0200 17.04.2002, Kilian Koepsell wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:30:55PM -0400, Chris Devers wrote: >>> [...] > Type: bundle > Depends: xfree86-base (= 4.2.0-4), xfree86-rootless (= 4.2.0-2) > Description:

Re: [Fink-devel] Problems with the Fink expat package

Kyle Moffett wrote: [] > /sw/lib/libexpat.la > gcc: /sw/src/root-expat-1.95.1-1/sw/lib/libexpat.a: No such file or > directory > > Since my apache tarball was not even around when I was building expat, > and that directory (root-expat-1.95.1-1) does not exist, I can only > assume that something s

Re: [Fink-devel] holding back package upgrade (was: Callingmozilla)

At 2:58 Uhr +0200 17.04.2002, Kilian Koepsell wrote: >On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 05:30:55PM -0400, Chris Devers wrote: >> [...] >> > >Type: bundle >> > >Depends: xfree86-base (= 4.2.0-4), xfree86-rootless (= 4.2.0-2) >> > >Description: Prevents automatic update... >> >> It's an interesting strat

Re: [Fink-devel] package names when shared libraries areincidental

At 14:03 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >Hi. There was a discussion on #fink a week or so ago about what package >names to use when the shared libraries are incidental rather than a central >function of the package in question. The suggestion being discussed was >that there could

Re: [Fink-devel] Fink Package Version Checking

At 18:19 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 06:00 PM, Max Horn wrote: > >>At 17:54 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >>>On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Max Horn wrote: At 6:42 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >I feel kind of