At 23:05 Uhr +0900 22.01.2002, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>Hi,
>I just had a thought on the "plan" and new file format.
>
>Instead of going to a different package file format keep the one we
>have and use
>ar or tar to make them into one file. The archive could also contain
>the patches.
I think thi
Hi,
I just had a thought on the "plan" and new file format.
Instead of going to a different package file format keep the one
we have and use
ar or tar to make them into one file. The archive could also
contain the patches.
Fink would then look at the file names in the archive to
determine whi
At 17:59 Uhr -0800 20.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 13:43, Martin Costabel wrote:
>
>> I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present
>> format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just
>> this extreme simplicity of the format of
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 13:43, Martin Costabel wrote:
> I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present
> format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just
> this extreme simplicity of the format of the info files. If you
> complicate this, like with XML wher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 03:50 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> The way I was thinking everything should work is to have to extensions,
> .info and .xinfo. Then Fink could look for both, and if it is .info, use
> the old format, and if it is .xi
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 13:03, Max Horn wrote:
> At 12:43 Uhr -0800 20.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> >If you're going to switch, I think that rpm is the clear choice.
>
> Err, I think you completly misunderstood me. I am not talking about
> going away from debian, I am talking from going fro
The way I was thinking everything should work is to have to extensions,
.info and .xinfo. Then Fink could look for both, and if it is .info,
use the old format, and if it is .xinfo, use the new (probably XML) info
format. If anybody was interested in YAML info files, then we could
also use .
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 01:43 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
>
>>Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>>
>>>On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:
>>
* Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
carefully designed,
At 9:43 Uhr +1100 21.01.2002, Matt Stephenson wrote:
>If we moved to a new package format I vote for XML, but I would also
>like to see fink continue to support the current format.
In any case we would go on the old format, at least for several
months, and possibly for ever.
max
--
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 01:43 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:
>
>>> * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
>>> carefully designed, I think.
Thought I give you my 2cents,
> Anyway, regarding the opposition against a new package format: may I
> ask are you actually against:
>
> * the new format (be it XML, YAML or anything else)
> * support for muliple variants
> * or both.
>
>
> My I finally add in that "new format" very well could m
this isn't true Max, I did make a suggestion to extent to current format.
In fact i accidently sent it twice with out knowing. I'll see if i can
dig it up if you don't remember.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>My I finally add in that "new format" very well could mean "old
>format with extended fea
At 21:52 Uhr + 20.01.2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
>On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 09:49 PM, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
>
>>Like they say, If it ain't broke ...
>
>But the point is that the current info format is broke, to a certain
>extent. :-P
It's lacking features. It's not sufficient to do ever
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 09:49 PM, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
> Like they say, If it ain't broke ...
But the point is that the current info format is broke, to a certain
extent. :-P
-- Finlay
___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https:
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 09:43 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
>>> * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
>>> carefully designed, I think.
>
> I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present
> format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacu
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Gordon Messmer wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:
>
> > > * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
> > > carefully designed, I think.
>
> I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the
Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:
> > * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
> > carefully designed, I think.
I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present
format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectac
At 12:43 Uhr -0800 20.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:
[...]
> > * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
>> carefully designed, I think.
>
>If you're going to switch, I think that rpm is the clear choice.
Err, I think y
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:
> * shlibs support - I am going to work on this during weekend
Cool. I'd love to help, but I'm already involved in too many projects
of my own. I just wish there were more hours in a day. Or more days in
a weekend. :)
> * A way to sign .deb files
I want to start a PLAN file in CVS which contains the steps we plan
for the future, and for which release each is targeted. We should
also maybe fix what features we think are necessary for a 1.0 release.
Pre 1.0:
* shlibs support - I am going to work on this during weekend
* two-level hierac
20 matches
Mail list logo
