Le 17 mai 2005 à 20:16, Daniel Macks a écrit :
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:37:29AM +0200, Mich?le Garoche wrote:
I thought about hacking the AC_PROG_INTLTOOL macro with something like `which perl` result, would it work?
I wrote:OTOH, the AC_PROG_INTLTOOL macro really uses "first 'perl' in PATH".
Sorry, it takes me a while to read it more carefully XXX versus XXY.
So now, if this is a solution for say perl 5.8.6 in usr/bin, what happens the day there is a 5.8.7 in fink, and the day there is a 5.8.8 in system?One can set INTLTOOL_PERL to a specific path in order to over-ride the PATH search, so perhaps a cleaner solution is to set that to /usr/bin/perl and then XXX in BuildDepends:xml-parser-pmXXX is not affected by perlXXY packages.
And maybe no xml-parser-pm587 or 588.
At the moment, it is a solution since max XXX on system is > max XXY on fink. Not sure it will remind the best one when XXY becomes > XXX.Does endowing the intltool package with a RuntimeVars:INTLTOOL_PERL:/usr/bin/perl work as an improvement on our current best-practice?
Or are we better off scrapping that approach and just setting it in each package directly and adding the BDep for the now-more-certain xml-parser-pmXXX?
Still thinking this is a better solution.
Anyway, you're the specialist.
Cheers, Michèle <http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt12&alloc_id344&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
