On Jan 18, 2004, at 12:39 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
The solution would be to still parse %n and generate a big fat warning instead of fink dying.
I still disagree with this 'fix' by dmacks. There is no reason for fink to die or warn at all. The old behavior was harmless, and was explicitly coded in by Max.
Package: %n-shlibs in a splitoff makes no sense, but clearly, we know the author meant %N-shlibs. The technical explanation of why it has to be implemented differently isn't really relevant, it could be fixed if one desired. Remember the motto be "liberal in what one accepts and conservative in what one sends".
If one wants to warn, do it in fink validate..
-Ben
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
