Keith Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> committed: > Update of /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo > > --- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.info --- > Patch: %f.patch
But... > --- NEW FILE: m2crypto-python22.patch --- so patch should be %n.patch, no? Also, while we're looking at the patch... > *** ../old_m2crypto/setup.py Sun Jun 22 11:45:33 2003 > --- ./setup.py Wed Aug 6 14:17:18 2003 [old] > ! include_dirs = [my_inc, '/usr/include'] > ! library_dirs = ['/usr/lib'] [new] > ! include_dirs = [my_inc, '/sw/include'] > ! library_dirs = ['/sw/lib'] That appears to be some hard-coded /sw. I don't think the validator catches it, however..."whoever wrote the check for /sw in .patch" only remembered to deal with unified context (diff -u) format. I wonder if it would be best to just run the unpack and patch phases for a fink with %p not /sw and then simply search %b for "/sw". That way we also get patches applied by PatchScript (current tests only look at the file listed in Patch:) and also allow the original to have /sw which is then fixed during Patch/PatchScript). dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
