Re: [Fink-devel] popt-shlibs-1.10.4-1
On 11/10/06, fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi, > i can't 'fink install amarok' because of a problem while installing > popt-shlibs. > here it is : > > $ fink install popt-shlibs > Information about 5554 packages read in 1 seconds. > The following package will be installed or updated: > popt-shlibs > The following additional package will be installed: > automake1.9 > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > > [few minutes] > > perl(23301) malloc: *** vm_allocate(size=229376) failed (error code=3) > perl(23301) malloc: *** error: can't allocate region > perl(23301) malloc: *** set a breakpoint in szone_error to debug > Out of memory! > > no problem to install automake1.9 > -- > Package manager version: 0.25.1 > Distribution version: 0.8.1.rsync i386 > Mac OS X version: 10.4.8 > Xcode version: 2.4 > gcc version: 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363) > make version: 3.80 > > using smallest macbook > I refer you to another thread on this list: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel/13467 See if changing your MirrorOrder works. -- Alexander K. Hansen Fink Documenter (still) - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] popt-shlibs-1.10.4-1
hi, i can't 'fink install amarok' because of a problem while installing popt-shlibs. here it is : $ fink install popt-shlibs Information about 5554 packages read in 1 seconds. The following package will be installed or updated: popt-shlibs The following additional package will be installed: automake1.9 Do you want to continue? [Y/n] [few minutes] perl(23301) malloc: *** vm_allocate(size=229376) failed (error code=3) perl(23301) malloc: *** error: can't allocate region perl(23301) malloc: *** set a breakpoint in szone_error to debug Out of memory! no problem to install automake1.9 -- Package manager version: 0.25.1 Distribution version: 0.8.1.rsync i386 Mac OS X version: 10.4.8 Xcode version: 2.4 gcc version: 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5363) make version: 3.80 using smallest macbook - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Fink-devel Digest, Vol 7, Issue 13
On 10 Nov 2006, at 20:12, Paul Mitchum wrote: > On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:27:08 -0800 >> From: "Lars Rosengreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> On 11/10/06, Paul Mitchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new installs? >>> >>> Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.* >> >> A lot of maintainers wait for some positive feedback from users >> before >> moving a package into stable. If you use a package and think it is >> ready >> for stable, please let the maintainer know. > > Well, see, this is exactly the can of worms I was hoping to open. :-) > > Why should users get to determine which packages are 'stable' and > which aren't? If the threshold between stable and unstable is that > users are OK with it, then it seems that packages without outstanding > bug reports could be automatically moved to stable after, say, six > months or something. That would make the process both more > transparent and predictable, and also less of a headache to > maintainers. Even if it weren't set up to be automatic, there might > be a twice-yearly Race To The Stable Day, where maintainers could > race to make their packages stable by clearing bugs from the tracker. > > But whether that's the solution or not: I think fink would really do > well to adopt a very clear policy on when and how packages should > move to stable. More packages would end up as stable if a clear > policy were in place. I agree with the basic premise that a lack of bug reports should be sufficient evidence to move a package to stable. But I think six months is too long a window. If a widely used package has a noticeable bug, I would expect users to complain right away. They may not file bug reports, but they'll either complain directly tot the maintainer, or they'll complain on the mailing lists. If there are no reports of bugs, that either means the package is basically working, or no one is using it. In either case there is little risk to moving it to stable, in my opinion. No problems reported in two to four weeks should be enough justification to move a package to stable. Kevin Horton Ottawa, Canada - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Fink-devel Digest, Vol 7, Issue 13
On 11/10/06, Paul Mitchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:27:08 -0800 > > From: "Lars Rosengreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On 11/10/06, Paul Mitchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new > >>> installs? > >> > >> Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.* > > > > A lot of maintainers wait for some positive feedback from users before > > moving a package into stable. If you use a package and think it is > > ready > > for stable, please let the maintainer know. > > Well, see, this is exactly the can of worms I was hoping to open. :-) > > Why should users get to determine which packages are 'stable' and > which aren't? If the threshold between stable and unstable is that > users are OK with it, then it seems that packages without outstanding > bug reports could be automatically moved to stable after, say, six > months or something. That would make the process both more > transparent and predictable, and also less of a headache to > maintainers. Even if it weren't set up to be automatic, there might > be a twice-yearly Race To The Stable Day, where maintainers could > race to make their packages stable by clearing bugs from the tracker. > The main reason for needing user feedback is because sometimes people maintain packages that they don't use themselves. Lack of bug reports could mean that a package hasn't been installed by anybody, and in such a case it could be broken without anybody's knowledge. I'd put the onus for a call to stabilze the package on the maintainer: they should send a message to the lists asking for somebody (else) to install the package and try it out. (As a side note, using the bug tracker to report package bugs isn't usually the best option, because there's nothing that sends a message to the package maintainer automatically so that they even know a bug report has been filed. Typically results are better when they're contacted directly) > But whether that's the solution or not: I think fink would really do > well to adopt a very clear policy on when and how packages should > move to stable. More packages would end up as stable if a clear > policy were in place. > > I say this having searched for such a policy and being unable to find > one. If it already exists, then I'd be glad to see it. > > There isn't one, apart from the necessary conditions that I mentioned earlier in this thread--it has been left up to the individual maintainers to decide when/if their packages are ready. -- Alexander K. Hansen Fink Documenter (still) - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Fink-devel Digest, Vol 7, Issue 13
On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:27:08 -0800 > From: "Lars Rosengreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 11/10/06, Paul Mitchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new >>> installs? >> >> Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.* > > A lot of maintainers wait for some positive feedback from users before > moving a package into stable. If you use a package and think it is > ready > for stable, please let the maintainer know. Well, see, this is exactly the can of worms I was hoping to open. :-) Why should users get to determine which packages are 'stable' and which aren't? If the threshold between stable and unstable is that users are OK with it, then it seems that packages without outstanding bug reports could be automatically moved to stable after, say, six months or something. That would make the process both more transparent and predictable, and also less of a headache to maintainers. Even if it weren't set up to be automatic, there might be a twice-yearly Race To The Stable Day, where maintainers could race to make their packages stable by clearing bugs from the tracker. But whether that's the solution or not: I think fink would really do well to adopt a very clear policy on when and how packages should move to stable. More packages would end up as stable if a clear policy were in place. I say this having searched for such a policy and being unable to find one. If it already exists, then I'd be glad to see it. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] fink vs. the alternatives
On 11/10/06, Paul Mitchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new installs? >Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.*A lot of maintainers wait for some positive feedback from users before moving a package into stable. If you use a package and think it is ready for stable, please let the maintainer know. -- Lars Rosengreenhttp://www.phylopy.org/~lars - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] fink vs. the alternatives
On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:18 AM, Paul Mitchum wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new >> installs? >> > > > Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.* > +1 - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] fink vs. the alternatives
On 11/10/06, Charles Lepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/10/06, Paul Mitchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new installs? > > > > > > > > > Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.* > > Testing packages for stable is harder than it appears at first glance. > If I want to move a GTK+-based package into stable, I first need to > check that the version of GTK+ itself will not cause any problems. > Then, it helps to actually compile in a real stable tree (so that > stable does not lose its value due to maintainers just adding whatever > packages they assume will work). > > -- > - Charles Lepple > It also helps if there is positive user feedback--especially on packages that a maintainer doesn't use themselves. So as a generality, a package should 1) have all of its dependencies (of appropriate versioning) in the stable tree 2) follow all other policies, e.g. the Shlibs poilicy to go into the stable tree. I -now- (there have been prior mis-commits) have a clean build setup for stable, so I use that to check whether my packages build to make sure that all the dependencies exist in stable and that it doesn't somehow generate a bad deb file (e.g. no executable) when compilied from scratch as is done in generating the binary distribution. Also, maintainers without commit access need to put out requests to move their packages to stable more often. We've kicked around the prospects of a 3-tiered system on the IRC channel: stable--as it has been testing--the better packages from unstable unstable--this might even be set up to allow commits from registered maintainers without giving everybody full access. These packages would be moved to testing by someone with wide commits access once they've been verified to pass criteria (TBD). -- Alexander K. Hansen Fink Documenter (still) - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] fink vs. the alternatives
On 11/10/06, Paul Mitchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new installs? > > > > > Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.* Testing packages for stable is harder than it appears at first glance. If I want to move a GTK+-based package into stable, I first need to check that the version of GTK+ itself will not cause any problems. Then, it helps to actually compile in a real stable tree (so that stable does not lose its value due to maintainers just adding whatever packages they assume will work). -- - Charles Lepple - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] fink vs. the alternatives
On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:27 AM, "Lars Rosengreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about making the unstable tree enabled by default on new installs? > Or, perhaps *move packages into the stable tree on occassion.* - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Compiling popt: Out of memory error.
Martin Costabel wanadoo.fr> writes: > > James Robinson wrote: > [] > > Let me know if you want any more info. > > > > %.acrux ~> fink list fink > > Information about 5522 packages read in 1 seconds. > > i fink 0.25.1-31 The Fink package manager > > i fink-mirrors 0.25.1.2-1 Mirror infrastructure > > i fink-prebinding 0.7.1-1002 Tools for enabling prebinding in Fink > > finkinfofile 1.4-1 Spotlight importer for Fink .info files > > webmin-fink-scripts 1.270-1 Essential Fink scripts for Webmin > > This looks completely normal, it is therefore not helpful > > Another idea: In your /sw/etc/fink.conf file, what do you have in the > field "MirrorOrder:"? Do you perhaps have > > MirrorOrder: ClosestFirst > > ? If yes, set it to MasterFirst or MasterLast and see if this changes > anything. I smell a bug hiding somewhere in that corner. > Hi Martin, Yes, MirrorOrder was set to ClosestFirst. Changing it to MasterFirst or MasterLast allows jam to install with no problems. For your reference, here is my complete fink.conf... %.vega ~> cat /sw/etc/fink.conf # Fink configuration, initially created by bootstrap.pl Basepath: /sw RootMethod: sudo Trees: local/main stable/main stable/crypto unstable/main unstable/crypto Distribution: 10.4 FetchAltDir: Mirror-apt: http://bindist.finkmirrors.net/bindist Mirror-cpan: http://www.mirror.ac.uk/mirror/ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/perl/CPAN Mirror-ctan: ftp://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive Mirror-debian: http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian Mirror-gimp: http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp Mirror-gnome: ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME Mirror-gnu: ftp://ftp.mcc.ac.uk/pub/gnu Mirror-kde: http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.kde.org/pub/kde Mirror-master: http://distfiles.master.finkmirrors.net/ Mirror-rsync: rsync://master.us.finkmirrors.net/finkinfo/ Mirror-sourceforge: http://kent.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/ MirrorContinent: eur MirrorCountry: eur-uk MirrorOrder: ClosestFirst ProxyPassiveFTP: true Verbose: 1 SelfUpdateMethod: rsync ConfFileCompatVersion: 1 UseBinaryDist: true Mirror-apache: http://www.mirror.ac.uk/mirror/ftp.apache.org %.vega ~> Regards, James R. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
