Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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. >
I didn't express myself very well. Someday, later, we will want to introduce Shlibs and start to use it. If we are sure that this will be the name of the field, it would be nice to have "fink validate" not object to it. (Causes less confusion when we actually start to use it.) We don't make point releases of the fink package manager very often, so I thought it would be good to include this field now for future use (like we did with the BuildDependsOnly field). -- Dave _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
