On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 06:00 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> At 17:54 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Max Horn wrote: >>> At 6:42 Uhr -0400 16.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >>>> I feel kind of stupid now, but maybe something where Fink could >>>> update itself to the latest cvs would be helpful >>> >>> "fink selfupdate-cvs" >>> >>> It's already there. All essential packages (including Fink) are >>> automaticall updated if you run it >>> >>> Also, binary distro doesn't involve the Fink package manager at all, >>> hence such a field as you propose wouldn't do anything with regards >>> to the bindist. And there is no need for it either, since the "new >>> binaries" work fine with the "old" package manager. >> >> I think you misinterpreted my idea, let me try to rephrase it: >> >> Let's say that we need a new tag 'Foo:' for some packages. The tag is >> made, added to pm cvs and everything is OK. The problems come when >> somebody using unstable cvs packages tries to install a package using >> that tag. At the moment fink will fail with some weird error >> (Depending on the tag and its purpose). > > Well, if they do it the right way (using fink selfupdate-cvs), then > Fink will already be updated! Fink is usually no more than a couple of > days in unstable only. And in any case, if you mess with unstable, you > bear the risks. Yes, but it is sometimes a week or two when new features are in cvs but not available as a package. fink selfupdate-cvs only updates from the /fink/packages tree in cvs. The /fink/fink tree is ignored. >> I was suggesting that instead, all packages needing features not >> present in the latest released package manager could be identified by >> 'Depends: fink-cvs (>= #date#)' or 'NeedsFinkCVS: #date#'. > > We do this already, though with BuildDepends. Yes, but if it depends on features only available in cvs, the versioning fails. Some packages might need a newer version of fink, but if the version isn't available as a tarball, it cannot be obtained except by the cvs tree /fink/fink. >> Then Fink could by default ignore packages in CVS (stable or >> unstable) that have a non-cvs version or a cvs version older than >> #date#. Then an optional tag could be set in fink.conf for developers >> and beta testers. This tag would tell Fink to ask the developer if >> they want to update the fink pkg manager from cvs on the detection of >> such a package. > > Well, why? > > a) developers should also use fink selfupdate-cvs Yes, but selfupdate-cvs does not upgrade the package manager version that is still in cvs. This is not a very long time, but occasionally I see mails asking why a package errors out with new tags that should work or some new feature doesn't seem to exist (Because the developer/beta tester didn't update the pkg manager from cvs.) > b) developers that don't use it should be clever enough to know a new > Fink PM might be needed (like by the announce mails on the mailing list) Yes, but as I mentioned above, sometimes features are in cvs for a while before being tarballed and released. Beta testers would have an easier time if they could use fink to update to the latest cvs version > c) most developers seem to use unstable anyway Well, yes, but there is the problem, some get confused when new packages don't work because of missing Fink PM features > d) the package already builddepend on fink >= Foo-Bar Yes, but if the fink features are not in any released version (0.9.9, etc.) then they cannot currently be depended on. > So what would we gain? So far I see nothing. Why should Fink tell the > user explicitly to please update fink, when it does so automatically > anyway (remember, FInk is an essential package, it's updated > automatically). Yes, but only if a new tarball and package file have been released. If the features are only in the cvs, then they are not automatically updated. Kyle Moffett _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
