We don't *always* have to share files. In the case of xmkmf I plan to create different versions for the different trees. I'll probably put the Distribution labels there just to remind myself what they are intended for.
-- Dave On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 09:45:05AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote: >> Jack, >> >> Many of our package maintainers will now be faced with trying to >> maintain a package across several distributions, and in cases where >> there doesn't need to be a difference, the maintenance is easier if >> the >> foo.info files are identical. >> > > Dave, > Okay, so we will retain the x86_64 variant naming even on 10.7. Some > thought will have to be given to packages like xmkmf.info which is > currently patched to use llvm-gcc-4.2/llvm-cpp-4.2 at runtime. This is > more appropriate for Lion but if we intend to share that packaging > directly with the other trees the patch should be changed to use > gcc-4.2/cpp-4.2. However that will be a problem for 10.4_EOL. > Sharing the same files across three trees will be a challenge. > Jack > >> So generally, copying the same version, revision, architecture, and >> even >> distribution information makes sense, since those things will >> enable the >> same file to be used in three different places: (1) the 10.4-EOL >> tree for >> the 10.4 distribution, (2) the 10.4 tree for the 10.5 and 10.6 >> distributions, and (3) the 10.7 tree for the 10.7 distribution. >> >> -- Dave >> >> On Jul 21, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> >>> Some consensus should be arrived at on how revisions should be set >>> in the 10.7 >>> tree relative to 10.4-EOL/10.4(aka 10.5). For example, take the >>> package foobar which >>> in 10.4 may have... >>> >>> foobar.info with >>> >>> Version: 1.0 >>> Revision: 1000 >>> >>> foobar-x86_64.info with >>> >>> Version: 1.0 >>> Revision: 1001 >>> Architecture: x86_64 >>> >>> so what should foobar in 10.7 be. I would argue for a full reset >>> with... >>> >>> foobar.info (no _x86_64 variant required) >>> Version: 1.0 >>> Revision: 1 >>> >>> Otherwise, what is the correct answer? >>> >>> foobar-1.0-1000 >>> foobar-1.0-1001 >>> foobar-1.0-1002 >>> >>> Unfortunately, I think extreme care will have to be taken when >>> synchronizing the >>> trees since we will have lots of packages without x86_64 variants in >>> 10.7 and >>> there is no longer a rationale for using the large revisions. It may >>> even be true >>> that have a rupture between Revision numbering may help remind the >>> maintainers >>> that foobar.info in 10.4 is radically different from foobar.info in >>> 10.7. >>> Jack >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> 5 Ways to Improve & Secure Unified Communications >>> Unified Communications promises greater efficiencies for business. >>> UC >>> can >>> improve internal communications as well as offer faster, more >>> efficient ways >>> to interact with customers and streamline customer service. Learn >>> more! >>> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426253/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fink-devel mailing list >>> Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> List archive: >>> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel >>> Subscription management: >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Ways to Improve & Secure Unified Communications Unified Communications promises greater efficiencies for business. UC can improve internal communications as well as offer faster, more efficient ways to interact with customers and streamline customer service. Learn more! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426253/ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel