Re: [Fink-devel] Patch and PatchScript ignored

2004-06-01 Thread Martin Costabel
Alexander Strange wrote: [] Current stable and unstable both have 0.20.2-1 which supports this. Cvs log shows that dumpinfo is not in the released versions of fink: RCS file: /cvsroot/fink/fink/perlmod/Fink/Engine.pm,v Working file: Engine.pm head: 1.176 [] symbolic names: release_0_20_2:

Re: [Fink-devel] Patch and PatchScript ignored

2004-06-01 Thread Alexander Strange
On May 31, 2004, at 10:10 PM, Rohan Lloyd wrote: You're not the only one. I get exactly the same results here. -- Rohan Lloyd Oh, now it's missing for me too. It must have disappeared when I went from 0.20.1.cvs to 0.20.2. --- This SF.Net

Re: [Fink-devel] Patch and PatchScript ignored

2004-06-01 Thread Martin Langhoff (NZL)
Alexander Strange wrote: What version of fink is it (fink --version)? Current stable and unstable both have 0.20.2-1 which supports this. Hmmm. This doesn't seem normal, then -- I have a very old fink even if I have current FINK: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]$ fink --version Package manager version:

Re: [Fink-devel] Patch and PatchScript ignored

2004-06-01 Thread David R. Morrison
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

Re: [Fink-devel] Dependency problem with pcrs0

2004-06-01 Thread David R. Morrison
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 (=

[Fink-devel] recode-3.6-7

2004-06-01 Thread Friedel Patzak
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

[Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/utils rzip.patch,NONE,1.1 rzip.info,1.1,1.2

2004-06-01 Thread Benjamin Reed
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

[Fink-devel] Re: package hijacking

2004-06-01 Thread Benjamin Reed
[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

Re: [Fink-devel] BuildDependsOnly is a bad idea?

2004-06-01 Thread Benjamin Reed
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

Re: [Fink-devel] validating BuildDependsOnly

2004-06-01 Thread Daniel Macks
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/include,

Re: [Fink-devel] validating BuildDependsOnly

2004-06-01 Thread David R. Morrison
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 I'll

Re: [Fink-devel] validating BuildDependsOnly

2004-06-01 Thread Peter O'Gorman
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, at

[Fink-devel] Doc bug - Bad heredoc syntax

2004-06-01 Thread Martin Langhoff (NZL)
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

Re: [Fink-devel] Doc bug - Bad heredoc syntax

2004-06-01 Thread Michèle Garoche
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 subtitle.

[Fink-devel] Re: Doc bug - Bad heredoc syntax

2004-06-01 Thread D. Höhn
-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 . | snip And just for the record, please report such issues in the future to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank