Re: [Fink-devel] On multi-target packages and how to implement them
Notice that the license files for package foo go in /sw/share/doc/foo/ So if we have foo, foo-bin, and foo-shlibs, the license files will go in /sw/share/doc/foo /sw/share/doc/foo-bin /sw/share/doc/foo-shlibs The developer will have the option of using the DocFiles line for any of the packages, to make the installation easier. But if the DocFiles line isn't used, the InstallScript will have to make sure that copies of the license documentation are placed into *each* of the required directories. They all have different names. -- Dave David Stanaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday, February 15, 2002, at 08:31 PM, Max Horn wrote: > > > IMHO, it is cleaner to have the "Files" field, splitoffs really > > shouldn't do much more than to contain some files that used to be in > > the master package. Using "files", we also gurantee that the packages > > don't contain identical files (they should be completly orthogonal). > > What about license files and other stuff that goes in doc? > ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] On multi-target packages and how to implement them
On Friday, February 15, 2002, at 08:31 PM, Max Horn wrote: > IMHO, it is cleaner to have the "Files" field, splitoffs really > shouldn't do much more than to contain some files that used to be in > the master package. Using "files", we also gurantee that the packages > don't contain identical files (they should be completly orthogonal). What about license files and other stuff that goes in doc? == David Stanaway Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] On multi-target packages and how to implement them
What I think is that instead of all this files business, we ought to simply allow InstallScript in SplitOffs, then all that would be needed is a few different install scripts, and very little extra perl code ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] On multi-target packages and how to implement them
Two more comments for now: 1) InfoDocs also needs to be on the "allowed" list, since we can't control where the .info files will be installed. Similarly, UpdatePod. 2) Although it would be great in principle to somehow have every package with a %n-shlibs splitoff to have a default "Depends: %n-shlibs (= %v-%r)" I don't see how that can be implemented in this broader context of allowing lots of splitoffs. -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] On multi-target packages and how to implement them
I like the SplitOff: << Package: %n-shlibs << style. But I have a question about the syntax: will the entries within a "SplitOff" section be allowed to use multi-line format themselves? e.g. SplitOff: << Package: %n-shlibs DescDetail: << The shared libraries for foo have many special properties which must be discussed in detail here << << I'm a bit worried about getting this parsed (by humans or by perl). Also, which things are allowed in SplitOff? Which things will have a default value? This requires some thought... -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] On multi-target packages and how to implement them
There is another aspect of this which has not yet been mentioned. When fink is analyzing dependencies, it (apparently, since I can't read perl) creates a list of existing .info files which it can suggest it will build in order to meet unmet dependencies. These will have to be generated in some new way, which adds all the splitoffs to the list as well sas the original. Still thinking this through, will have more comments later. -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
