On 8/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just to make it official, as we've already talked about this before:
> > yes, this seems to be a sane approach to handle dependencies.
> > BuildDependencies, however, should be left untouched, as it's a good
> > source for hints when some
On 8/27/07, Lucas C. Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:43:44 +0200, Michael Homer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Having submitted several binar
On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:43:44 +0200, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Having submitted several binary packages and had some chats on IRC with
> >> users
> >> trying to in
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:43:44 +0200, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Having submitted several binary packages and had some chats on IRC with users
>> trying to install the same packages I came to the conclusion that we need to
>> r
On Saturday 25 August 2007 04:53, Jonas Karlsson wrote:
> Having submitted several binary packages and had some chats on IRC with
> users trying to install the same packages I came to the conclusion that we
> need to rework the dependency scheme a lot.
Caveat: I'm way out of my league here, but
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:43:44 +0200, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Secondly I want a new dependency scheme for binary packages. Below is a draft
>> I've been thinking about:
>> For each needed library file a corresponding file is
On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having submitted several binary packages and had some chats on IRC with users
> trying to install the same packages I came to the conclusion that we need to
> rework the dependency scheme a lot.
>
> First I'd like to change dependencies to be
On 5/27/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carlo Calica wrote:
>
> Testing the _version_ requirements is probably more difficult since
> things can break in subtle ways with the wrong version, but at least it
> could complain if the _build process_ ends in an error, with any
> combinatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carlo Calica wrote:
> On 5/5/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Noticing:
>> One important use of forcing an install attempt despite unmatched
>> dependencies is to check if those are indeed (still) needed dependencies.
>>
> That's great fo
On 5/27/07, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > P.S. Hoping to (finally) have a GoboLinux-running computer next month,
> > rather than trying again to install a somewhat unfamiliar distribution
> > from source on this old slow powerpc while busy with school :D . Then I
> > should be able to
On 5/5/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Noticing:
> One important use of forcing an install attempt despite unmatched
> dependencies is to check if those are indeed (still) needed dependencies.
>
That's great for automaticed testing. Makes sure libraries are mininal enough.
> Often
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonas Karlsson wrote:
>>> Dependency files are still a complication though, unless they're
>>> changed into a shell-sourceable format. Ideally it would be compatible
>>> with existing files though, so I guess that means using a comment. "#
>>> :gtk" fo
On 7/31/06, André Detsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the best behaviour for Dependencies at meta-recipes?
After thinking a little bit about it, I think the following items
should be respected / assumed:
- The meta-recipe must accumulate all dependencies for its 'childs';
- There is no nee
13 matches
Mail list logo
