Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 18:11 Uhr -0500 02.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: [snip] > > >There is one other issue: sometimes, there are a bunch of auxiliary > >files which belong to a particular version of the library, and which > >could get stored in /sw/lib/foo/N/ or in /sw/share/foo/N/. As long > >as the N is there, these can go in the foo-shlibs package, right? > >And in many cases they should So the syntax of the Shlibs: field will need > >to allow for this. > > Yeah you are right. > That's why Kyle is correct when he says that a new package format > would ease all of this :) > > > >The DocFiles, or anything in /sw/share/doc/%n, should also go in the > >foo-shlibs package. > > Aye. > > > (In fact, I would be in favor of the following rule: > >if you are using the Shlibs: field, then you put all the documentation > >in /sw/share/doc/foo-shlibs, and you do not create /sw/share/doc/foo. > >WHOOPS - see below.) > > > >I would suggest, maybe, a list of files that are supposed to get moved > >from foo to foo-shlibs for installation. Anything put in by DocFiles > >would be included, as well as whatever we list in Shlibs. The one tricky > >part is that DocFiles has been interpreted as creating a single directory > >with all of the files in it, but with Shlibs we need to preserve the > >heierarchy. > > > >So, for example: > > > >Shlibs: << > > %i/lib/foo.1.2.3.dylib > > %i/lib/foo.1.dylib > > %i/lib/foo/1/* > > %i/share/doc/%n/* > ><< > > > >(It's clear what fink is supposed to do here... InfoFiles and Daemonic > >would belong to foo, not foo-shlibs, I think.) > > The LICENSE/COPYING/whatever file should be in both packages, ultimatly. > > > >The WHOOPS above is this: the value of %n is foo, not foo-shlibs. So I > >think that we are creating %i/share/doc/%n not %i/share/doc/%n-shlibs. > >Either that, or we have to duplicate the documentation between the > >two packages, which seems silly. > > I am not sure if this is silly. Sure, duplicating a full manual is > silly, but when it comes to license/readme files, I think that would > be could. > > So my suggestion would be to simply install all files from DocFiles > into both packages. This way we don't have to worry about %n either > etc. Seems pretty elegant to me in fact :) >
This doesn't quite work. There are lots of reasons that you sometimes have to create %i/share/doc/%n by hand, and put things there. Or would we make that semi-illegal for these packages? That is, for these packages the LICENSE/COPYING would *have* to go in via DocFiles, and if you had a manual or something you would be advised to put it in manually so that it wouldn't go in twice? -- Dave P.S. I agree with your naming, and am creating libpng and libpng-shlibs now (when I'm not typing a message to you!). P.P.S. Eventually you will need to go to bed and I will need to go to dinner... :-) _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
