On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> On 27 Apr 2010, at 17:43, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> To recap, the problem with using a single package with split-off
>> strategy is that both gcc4x and gcc4x-bin would require a Conflicts/
>> Replaces on the older gcc4x packages which have overlapping files.
>> This is because the older gcc4x packages can't know that they are
>> are able co-exist with the newer gcc4x package and will Conflict with
>> it.
>> This causes dependency failures for fink in the absence of an explicit
>
> Jack _ I told you since the beginning (Re: co-existing gcc4x packages,
> april 25) that it would be much simpler to keep the name gcc45 for the
> splitoff containing the symlinks _ This way, no need to bother other
> pkgs, and you
> avoid the trouble you mention..
>
> Jean-Francois
JF,
Isn't that going to be considered a massive violation of fink
policy for shared library packages? It's sort of like using
update-alternatives for manpages and info files. It can be done
but many here will find it more repulsive than having package
maintainers update the BuildDepends. Frankly, if it came down
to it, I would much rather start the new overlapping gcc4x
packages with gcc45 than hack up gcc4x by suctioning all of
the files out of the main package.
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
