Re: [Fink-devel] Weird windowmaker 0.8.0 problem
At 15:26 Uhr +0100 20.01.2002, Martin Costabel wrote: [...] My explanation for the case at hand (./Install executed instead of /usr/bin/install when the make script uses install) is that the user uses HFS+, has . in his PATH that might be it, indeed. Will ask him. and that he is probably running bash, but maybe he can have the same problem in tcsh if the weather is bad or he didn't pay his shareware fees. He :) Max -- --- Max Horn Software Developer email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (+49) 6151-494890 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] plan
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Martin Costabel wrote: Gordon Messmer wrote: On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote: * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be carefully designed, I think. I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just this extreme simplicity of the format of the info files. If you complicate this, like with XML where you need special tools for editing, or with rpm which is much more complex, you will loose many of the package contributors. I don't mean you shouldn't add (carefully selected) additional features, but please keep the simple human readable and writable text format. I wholeheartedly concur with Martin here. Like they say, If it ain't broke ... -Jeff -- Jeffrey S. Whitaker Phone : (303)497-6313 Meteorologist FAX: (303)497-6449 NOAA/OAR/CDC R/CDC1Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] 325 BroadwayWeb: www.cdc.noaa.gov/~jsw Boulder, CO, USA 80303-3328 Office : Skaggs Research Cntr 1D-124 ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] plan
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 09:43 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be carefully designed, I think. I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just this extreme simplicity of the format of the info files. If you complicate this, like with XML where you need special tools for editing, or with rpm which is much more complex, you will loose many of the package contributors. I don't mean you shouldn't add (carefully selected) additional features, but please keep the simple human readable and writable text format. What's wrong with a text editor for XML editing? It's pretty simple and obvious, no less so than the current info files IMO. And there was never really any reason for switching to rpm anyway (even if we did, it would be unrelated to the fink package format because the engine could always convert them). -- Finlay ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] fink gui (was Re: macgimp pkgs and fink)
Mat Caughron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Quite frankly, I'm ready to give up on Apple's pkg stuff. The only thing it has to offer at this point is a GUI installation method, which, from reading the mailing lists, it looks like the fink will have at some point in the not-too-distant future. (yes, I realize that there is some disagreement on this point, but there was enough interest that I'm confident it will occur. The best part about this is that with a fink GUI, you could uninstall, and Apple makes this almost completely impossible since they haven't documented the receipts, among other things.) Maybe I should be spending my time working on a GUI for fink. If anyone is already working on that, can you email me? I'd like to help out. There has been some preliminary work in this direction. See a href=http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=416825group_id=17203atid=367203;http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=416825group_id=17203atid=367203/a and a href=http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/fink/fink-gui/;http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/fink/fink-gui//a -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Replacing dpkgs
Bill Bumgarner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw a conversation go by that mentioned the possibility of using an alternative to dpkg for package management... I have no particular preference but thought I would toss out that Apple is moving more and more to using RPM internally and that the OpenPKG project-- a sort of cross platform Fink-- uses RPM. It is likely that RPM will be taking a more and more prominent role in the future of OSX. Let's see... It was mentioned on the darwin developer list that the current release of stand-alone Darwin is using dpkg for package management (although it is not being promised that this will be maintained in future releases). Also, if you consult www.openpackages.org, you will see that that project is developing its own format, .ops, and they hope to have conversion tools which will take a .ops file and turn it into a .rpm or .deb file. (You might also notice that the most recent release made by that project was 31 July 2001.) As such, if a move is made, a move to RPM would likely push the project in a direction more inline with the future of the platform. Seems unlikely to me, at least based on publically available information. -- Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] man package
The linux kernel archives are offline due to a hardware failure... attempting to build the man package is failing. Yes, it'll come back someday. But this raises the question: Do we want to look into building a network of mirrors for the various source bits in Fink? I could donate bandwidth from a couple of different locations. Ideally, a system where the people donating bandwidth could set the maximum bandwidth for Fink source downloads would be ideal. BitTorrent comes immediately to mind. May be beyond the scope of the immediate future, but something to think about. b.bum ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] plan
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 13:03, Max Horn wrote: At 12:43 Uhr -0800 20.01.2002, Gordon Messmer wrote: If you're going to switch, I think that rpm is the clear choice. Err, I think you completly misunderstood me. I am not talking about going away from debian, I am talking from going from our own custom .info format to a different format. Um.. yes. I misunderstood entirely. My apologies :) It provides shlib dependencies, pgp/gpg signatures, sub packages... All of which the .deb format can do, too. :) This is not the issue. It's not as easy as just saying oh recompile dpkg/rpm on Mac OS X and we can use it and every featur it provides on Linux. Just in case you haven't noticed yet. I hadn't actually. I've had to really look around to find information in features of dpkg that Fink doesn't (yet) exploit, like the shlibs stuff. It would probably be to Fink's benefit to replace .info files entirely with native package descriptions (in the case of rpm, .spec files). I completly fully wholeheartedly disagree with everything in the above sentence. That's fine. It's just that there's very little that Fink does that isn't done by dpkg and rpm, and a whole lot that they do which Fink does not. If you want to continue duplicating the work that's already gone in to dpkg in fink, it's your project. I figure it'd be easier to parse the files that dpkg uses to build deb files and build on top of that. Where's the value in maintaining your own file format that isn't (yet) as flexible as those already used by the tools you're building on top of? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] plan
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 13:43, Martin Costabel wrote: I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just this extreme simplicity of the format of the info files. If you complicate this, like with XML where you need special tools for editing, or with rpm which is much more complex Disclamer: I know that no one really wants to move to rpm, and I'm not trying to convince any one that they should. That probably makes this off topic, but... What makes rpm more complex than fink's .info? They're mostly the same format now. rpm is more advanced, and more flexible, but that only makes a spec file more complicated than an info file if you choose to use them (which most people do, because it's the right thing. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[Fink-devel] Newbie Questions: Compiling/Upgrading gdk-pixbuf libtool errors
I decided to try to build the Galeon web browser and ran into a dependency problem. Galeon requires that the gdk-pixbuf be a version greater than 0.13, while my fink installed gdk-bixbuf is at 0.11.0. So I tried to build the latest gdk-pixbuf (0.15.0) by copying the .info file for gdk-pixbuf-0.11.0-2 from the packages 0.32a distribution over to my dists/local/main tree, revising the contents and debugging the resulting fink install. I have made a fix or two to the package and it now configures but fails early in the 'make' process with libtool errors. The fink porting guide over at sourceforge describes libtool errors and a way to fix them but I am too much of a newbie to fully grasp them. Or perhaps the documentation is out of date since libtool seems to be actively changing and the documentation was last updated by Christoph in August. At any rate the specific error I am seeing is as follows: make make all-recursive Making all in gdk-pixbuf Making all in pixops /bin/sh ../../libtool --mode=compile cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I/sw/include/glib-1.2 -I/sw/lib/glib/include -I/sw/include/gtk-1.2 -I/sw/ include/glib-1.2 -I/sw/lib/glib/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -I../../gdk-pixbuf -no-cpp-precomp -I/sw/include -flat_namespace -c pixops.c libtool: ltconfig version `' does not match ltmain.sh version `1.3.5' Fatal configuration error. See the libtool docs for more information. make[3]: *** [pixops.lo] Error 1 make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2 ### make failed, exit code 2 Failed: compiling gdk-pixbuf-0.15.0-1 failed I have searched the darwin developer archive but have mostly seen reports of problems solved with the -flat_namespace flag but that doesn't seem to apply here. Any clues where I should go with this? Steve Wall ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] Re: db3 ( Evolution)
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 11:57 PM, Patrick Tescher wrote: Quick Question, I am down to 2 errors compiling evolution and I was looking around at how it will fit in with the current fink packages. Evolution requires Berkley's db 3.1.17. Splitting db into db3 and db4 was a good idea, but db3 is version 3.3.11. What do packages that require lower versions (like evolution). Do we want even more db packages (db3.1, db3.3, etc)? Right now I am using a custum install of db 3.1.17 but I don't think people want to have to install db themselves. I was also trying to port evolution at one point, so I just made a db3-3.1.17-1 .info and .patch file, and made evolution depend on 'db3 (== 3.1.17). When I try 'fink build evolution', it just builds db 3.1.17, and replaces the newer version with it, before trying to build evolution. I think different versions of db3 are otherwise replaceable, barring a few minor changes, so that seems like it should work. Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Newbie Questions: Compiling/Upgrading gdk-pixbuf libtool errors
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 11:09 PM, Jeremy Higgs wrote: Have a look in the source for an ltmain.sh file, and look for the version in that. If it is 1.3.5, you need to update the libtool scripts for Darwin compatibility, using UpdateLibtool: true in the .info. If the version is 1.4 or above, updating the scripts aren't necessary, as version 1.4 and above have inbuilt support for Darwin/MacOS X. The ltmain.sh is version 1.4, and the old .info for gdk-pixbuf had UpdateLibtool: true set, so I deleted that and the compile went somewhat farther. But it again errored on a libtool problem, this time with an error message I've seen more often in the message archives: cc -dynamiclib -undefined suppress -o .libs/libgdk_pixbuf.2.0.0.dylib gdk-pixbuf.lo gdk-pixbuf-animation.lo gdk-pixbuf-data.lo gdk-pixbuf-drawable.lo gdk-pixbuf-io.lo gdk-pixbuf-loader.lo gdk-pixbuf-render.lo gdk-pixbuf-scale.lo gdk-pixbuf-util.lo gdk-pixbuf-parse-color.lo -all_load pixops/.libs/libpixops.al -L/sw/lib -lgmodule -lglib -ldl -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lgtk -lgdk -lgmodule -lglib -ldl -lintl -lXext -lX11 -lm pixops/.libs/libpixops.al -lc -install_name /sw/ lib/libgdk_pixbuf.2.dylib -compatibility_version 3 -current_version 3.0 ld: -undefined error must be used when -twolevel_namespace is in effect /usr/bin/libtool: internal link edit command failed make[3]: *** [libgdk_pixbuf.la] Error 1 make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2 ### make failed, exit code 2 Failed: compiling gdk-pixbuf-0.15.0-1 failed Now, I've seen this error in the archives but am unclear on how to fix it. I think I am supposed to change the compiler flag -undefined suppress but I'm not sure where. Steve Wall Yep... You need to add '-flat_namespace' to the undefined flags for Darwin in the configure script, and make a patch for it. That should fix the error. ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Re: db3 ( Evolution)
This was actually my first idea, but if someone needs db 3 and db 4 it seems like a lot to have three installations of db. On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 11:57 PM, Patrick Tescher wrote: Quick Question, I am down to 2 errors compiling evolution and I was looking around at how it will fit in with the current fink packages. Evolution requires Berkley's db 3.1.17. Splitting db into db3 and db4 was a good idea, but db3 is version 3.3.11. What do packages that require lower versions (like evolution). Do we want even more db packages (db3.1, db3.3, etc)? Right now I am using a custum install of db 3.1.17 but I don't think people want to have to install db themselves. I was also trying to port evolution at one point, so I just made a db3-3.1.17-1 .info and .patch file, and made evolution depend on 'db3 (== 3.1.17). When I try 'fink build evolution', it just builds db 3.1.17, and replaces the newer version with it, before trying to build evolution. I think different versions of db3 are otherwise replaceable, barring a few minor changes, so that seems like it should work. Dave ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
