At 10:47 Uhr -0500 17.03.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >If I understand correctly what the dpkg shlibs stuff will eventually do >for us, at some point in the future each fink package which provides >shared libraries will need to give some data about those libraries to >be used by the dpkg-shlibs system. > >Max, will we put this directly in the .info file, do you think?
Yes > Something >like > >Shlibs: << > zlib 1 zlib (>= 1.1.4) ><< More like Shlibs: << libz 1 zlib (>= 1.1.3) << Though I don't like that to much... this is really something where XML would be handy. > >(to use the example from the Debian policy manual > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html ) > >Or maybe it goes in a separate file? No, why would we put it into a seperate file? One main strength of Fink is that everything for a package is in a single .info file (OK, in some cases, there's an additional .patch file). >The reason for bringing this up now is it would be good to start encouraging >people to provide this information in their packages, pretty soon. To >avoid "fink validate" problems, we might want to add one more field (Shlibs) >to the list of known fields right now, before the package manager release. I disagree. It's completly useless to do so now, since we first have to research how exactly it would be done. I.e. we'd end up with a bunch of package using some format we think now is good, only to discover they all have to be redone then. I.e. I don't see benefits from doing this now. We have enough other things to do first which are more urgent. Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
