[Fink-devel] -undefined error must be used when -twolevel_namespace is ineffect?

2002-04-24 Thread Jeremy Higgs
Hi everyone! I'm getting this error while compiling net-snmp 5.0 (will be added when it's fixed): cc -dynamiclib -undefined suppress -o .libs/libnetsnmp.5.0.0.dylib snmp_client.lo mib.lo parse.lo snmp_api.lo snmp.lo snmp_auth.lo asn1.lo md5.lo snmp_parse_args.lo system.lo vacm.lo int64.lo

Re: [Fink-devel] -undefined error must be used when -twolevel_namespace is in effect?

2002-04-24 Thread Chris Zubrzycki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hmm...I'm pretty sure you need to add -flat_namespace to the LDFLAGS... SetLDFlags: [whatever you have here] -flat_namespace On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 07:29 AM, Jeremy Higgs wrote: Hi everyone! I'm getting this error while compiling

Re: [Fink-devel] -undefined error must be used when -twolevel_namespace is in effect?

2002-04-24 Thread David R. Morrison
You need to find where the -undefined suppress flag is set: often it is buried in the configure script, sometimes it is in Makefile.in . There are two possible replacements for this flag: 1) -undefined error which will let you compile with the default -twolevel_namespace. 2)

[Fink-devel] debianutils out of date

2002-04-24 Thread David R. Morrison
I had a message from a friend of mine who was installing fink the old fashioned way, bootstraping from source. He discovered that one of our essential packages, debianutils, is out of date and the source is no longer available at the Debian site. In fact, the modification dates there indicate

Re: [Fink-devel] debianutils out of date

2002-04-24 Thread Max Horn
At 8:33 Uhr -0400 24.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: I had a message from a friend of mine who was installing fink the old fashioned way, bootstraping from source. He discovered that one of our essential packages, debianutils, is out of date and the source is no longer available at the Debian

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread David R. Morrison
I agree with your strategy Max: let's fix the problems and then release 0.4.1 relatively soon. On the libmpeg problem, it looks to me like the version in unstable is OK but the version in stable is the bad one. Has anybody tested this? We should move the good version to stable as soon as we

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 10:28 PM, Max Horn wrote: * dangerous problem in passwd * broken libmpeg * broken r-base * source bootstraping seems not possible w/o trick (trick being that you download the debianutil source manually, and during bootstrap tell Fink in which directory

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread Chris Devers
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: * gdk-pixbuf doesn't build correctl the first time it's built FYI, I was one of the people having problems with this. I went and upgraded some other packages, then came back it worked fine with the 0.16.0-5 version. Not sure how it ended up resolving

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread Martin Costabel
On mercredi, avril 24, 2002, at 03:28 , Max Horn wrote: There were some issues that made us consider getting out quickly a 0.4.0a release. Like for example: * dangerous problem in passwd * broken libmpeg * broken r-base * source bootstraping seems not possible w/o trick (trick being

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread Max Horn
At 11:39 Uhr -0400 24.04.2002, Chris Devers wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Max Horn wrote: * gdk-pixbuf doesn't build correctl the first time it's built FYI, I was one of the people having problems with this. I went and upgraded some other packages, then came back it worked fine with the

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread Max Horn
At 19:21 Uhr +0200 24.04.2002, Martin Costabel wrote: On mercredi, avril 24, 2002, at 03:28 , Max Horn wrote: There were some issues that made us consider getting out quickly a 0.4.0a release. Like for example: * dangerous problem in passwd * broken libmpeg * broken r-base * source

[Fink-devel] 'Undefined symbols' although they are

2002-04-24 Thread Sylvain Cuaz
Hi, I'm trying to package vlc (http://www.vlc.org), and here's what I get ... cc sdl.lo.sdl vout_sdl.lo.sdl aout_sdl.lo.sdl -L/sw/lib -ObjC -lpthread -Wall -bundle -undefined error -lcc_dynamic -shared -lSDLmain -lSDL -framework OpenGL -framework AGL -framework IOKit -framework

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread Ben Hines
At 8:59 AM -0600 4/24/02, Justin Hallett wrote: I think the only real reason there to release 0.4 is the bootstrap fail. It's the only issue that could potentially render fink unusable for some new users. Don't get me wrong I think the other problems should be fixed As opposed to the passwd

Re: [Fink-devel] 0.4.0a vs. 0.4.1

2002-04-24 Thread Brian Bechtel
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 02:26 PM, Max Horn wrote: At 14:24 Uhr -0700 24.04.2002, Ben Hines wrote: At 8:59 AM -0600 4/24/02, Justin Hallett wrote: I think the only real reason there to release 0.4 is the bootstrap fail. It's the only issue that could potentially render fink

[Fink-devel] Hmm. I wonder what this means?

2002-04-24 Thread Kyle Moffett
I found something interesting here, and I wonder what it means: /Developer/Makefiles/CoreOS/dpkg/control: Package: coreosmakefiles Maintainer: Darwin Developers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: Core OS Makefiles Build-Depends: cctools, libsystem, files, zsh, gnumake, file-cmds, shell-cmds,