Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-15 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:20:31 +0900 Masanori Sekino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll rewrite GTK2/GNOME2 packages and put them into CVS again. Renamed packages are in CVS now. They are named glib2, atk1, pango1, gtk+2, linc1 and libidl2. New packages orbit2 and libart2 are also available.

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-15 Thread Masanori Sekino
One more things, New packages does not replaces old one automatically. Please remove old packages before installation. On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:23:05 +0900 Masanori Sekino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Renamed packages are in CVS now. They are named glib2, atk1, pango1, gtk+2, linc1 and libidl2.

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Dan Winship
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Max Horn wrote: Would be nice if we had a package for glib 2.0 - ideally, it would be able to coexist to the current glib, though I am not sure how hard it would be exactly. All of the GNOME libraries are supposed to be set up so that you can

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 8:49 Uhr -0500 13.03.2002, Dan Winship wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Max Horn wrote: Would be nice if we had a package for glib 2.0 - ideally, it would be able to coexist to the current glib, though I am not sure how hard it would be exactly. All of the GNOME libraries

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
me either and i just made a symlink from my cvsroot splitoff dir into fink so i can install all the splitoff pkgs and there not there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS. Hm, don't see them there. ¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·.,

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:50:45 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS. Hm, don't see them there. Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can. Very nice! But I wonder, do they coexist with the old packages? They are coexisting

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
okay just testing it right now. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can. ¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·., Justin F. Hallett - Systems Analyst Phone: (780)-408-3094 Fax: (780)-454-3200 E-Mail: [EMAIL

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 2:16 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:50:45 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS. Hm, don't see them there. Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can. Very nice! But I wonder, do

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Dan Winship
That's not completly true. Some files are installed by both, like glib-config, etc.. No, glib 2.0 uses pkgconfig. If there are any files that both try to install, it's a bug and should be reported to bugzilla.gnome.org. You're supposed to be able to have both glib 1.2.10 and glib 2.0

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
also what is in the -common and are we gonna use -common and -base, this a general question for splitoff. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nice. Now one more question: why are the packages named like glib2-0 and not just glib2 ? ¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·., Justin F. Hallett - Systems

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
Libraries in glib2 are named: libglib-2.0.la libglib-2.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.0.0.dylib So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:23:41 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice.

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages. fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time, but if they contains a same file, /etc/foo.conf for example, they can't coexists. In this case, foo-common package contains /etc/foo.conf and all the fooN-shlibs depends on it.

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
OH we've been using -conf. We need a standard I think. I like -common and -base but those are debians anyhow that is just babling we need a standard. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -common package is a common files for -shlibs packages. fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time,

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 2:52 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: Libraries in glib2 are named: libglib-2.0.la libglib-2.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.0.0.dylib So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. I don't get that logic.

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 12:25 Uhr -0500 13.03.2002, Dan Winship wrote: That's not completly true. Some files are installed by both, like glib-config, etc.. No, glib 2.0 uses pkgconfig. If there are any files that both try to install, it's a bug and should be reported to bugzilla.gnome.org. You're supposed to be

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 3:02 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: -common package is a common files for -shlibs packages. fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time, but if they contains a same file, /etc/foo.conf for example, they can't coexists. In this case, foo-common package contains

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread David R. Morrison
We've had a package called fvwm-common since last July or August, which both fvwm and fvwm2 depend on. It works in exactly the same way -- all of the overlapping files go there. I borrowed the naming from debian at the time. I think we can stick with that naming convention. -- Dave

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
-conf is a good naming, if it contains only config files. but shlibs packages may share these files: - config files - locale files - modules - program or scripts, needed by shlibs package, especially by *Script field in .info file. So -common or -base is appropreate, I think. On Wed, 13 Mar

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
still waiting for Max to comment. All i'm saying is that we all need to use the same convension. Or should I think. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -conf is a good naming, if it contains only config files. but shlibs packages may share these files: - config files - locale files - modules - program

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. [...] Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ? Yes. I mean, what is bad about the

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. [...] Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Chris Devers
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote: At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ? Yes. He, if we ever get to that version, I will eat my hat

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 13:25 Uhr -0600 13.03.2002, Chris Devers wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote: At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ? Yes.

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Chris Devers
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote: At 13:25 Uhr -0600 13.03.2002, Chris Devers wrote: In a world where Emacs can be on version 21 How old is emacs? How big is the percentage of all open source projects with such a high version number? Heck, how big is the percentage with a version

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:21:17 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, what is bad about the package name glib2? Assuming there will be a version 2.2, it will be glib2-2.2 If say 2.4 was binary incompatible, we could make a glib24-2.4 package, however, I strongly doubt that

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Finlay Dobbie
Oh very few, I admit. Of the ones that I can think of a version number at the moment where that number is greater than 2, I can only come up with Perl, Vim, Mozilla, and Emacs. And of those, three of them are at or near version six (though Mozilla started at 6, and Perl's not there yet).

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 7:30 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:21:17 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean, what is bad about the package name glib2? Assuming there will be a version 2.2, it will be glib2-2.2 If say 2.4 was binary incompatible, we could make

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:45:14 +0100 Max Horn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: glib doesn't use a . but a -, however this is completly valid, various other packages do it this way (maybe the Shlibs policy file should be changed to mention that). [...] No, they mean the same, at least the way I