I notice a *lot* of packages have hardcoded /sw in their .patch files. So first, could everyone please check the things yuo maintain for this problem? I'm going to make 'fink validate' whine about this shortly...
To make this and other validator checks more reliable, I'm wondering about .patch filenames. Is there a time when having a *.info and *.patch where the corresponding filename roots "*" do not match is a good idea? We never say not to do this, but Packaging Manual says that's the usual way. A lot of packages now use PatchScript that reads the patchfile (cf. Patch) the validator code doesn't know to check the .patch at all, so if this is the rule we could always check *.patch if it is present (instead of checking "whatever Patch: says"). dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
