On 27 Apr 2010, at 18:07, Jack Howarth wrote: > 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? I don't see why.. > 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. Again, I don't see why ..
JF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
