[Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
I wanted to roll back from unstable's libxml2 at version 2.6.x, to stable's libxml2 at version 2.5.x so that I can build Perl's XML::LibXML again (which isn't compatible with 2.6.x yet). I thought I could just copy the stable .info file to my local/main area, and since I have local first, it would shadow the ones defined later. Apparently that's not the case. Do I really have to blow away the unstable versions just so that it sees the stable versions? My next rsync update will then re-upgrade me. Ugh. Why isn't the order of Trees important? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Why isn't the order of Trees important? This has annoyed me, too. I seem to remember someone saying that it is now, since one of the recent shakeups, the *reverse* order of the Trees line that is used. If true, I would consider this a serious bug. -- Martin --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
it's tree but version is higher, is if there is a newer version in on of the included trees it'll prefer it. plus if you have the old one compiled the deb is still there and it'll pick it. but you can do fink install libxml2-2.5.x-%r and it'll force that one. But you need the revision. and update-all will default to replace it. --- TS http://southofheaven.org Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 9-Dec-03, at 9:03 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: I wanted to roll back from unstable's libxml2 at version 2.6.x, to stable's libxml2 at version 2.5.x so that I can build Perl's XML::LibXML again (which isn't compatible with 2.6.x yet). I thought I could just copy the stable .info file to my local/main area, and since I have local first, it would shadow the ones defined later. Apparently that's not the case. Do I really have to blow away the unstable versions just so that it sees the stable versions? My next rsync update will then re-upgrade me. Ugh. Why isn't the order of Trees important? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
On Dec 9, 2003, at 5:25 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Why isn't the order of Trees important? This has annoyed me, too. I seem to remember someone saying that it is now, since one of the recent shakeups, Not that recent : the introduction of 'fink index' the *reverse* order of the Trees line that is used. If true, I would consider this a serious bug. It is somewhat less intuitive, yes _ and further was unannounced, and undocumented, while this ordering is really an important config tool for users, and there were several previous msgs on the lists pointing out its use. So the change definitely wasn't done optimally. Jean-Francois --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
Martin Costabel wrote: Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Why isn't the order of Trees important? This has annoyed me, too. I seem to remember someone saying that it is now, since one of the recent shakeups, the *reverse* order of the Trees line that is used. If true, I would consider this a serious bug. Fink always picks the newest epoch/version/revision tuple regardless of tree order. The only time tree order matters is if you somehow happen to have 2 different versions of the same versioned package in different trees (which shouldn't happen unless you messed with a package and put it in local, in which case you reap what you sow). If you want to install a specific version, you do fink install foo-0.1-1. If you want it to never upgrade you, then your options are to not run unstable, or hack the old package to have a newer epoch and put it in your local tree, but you'll never get upgrades again until things happen to match up epoch-wise. Or don't run update-all if you don't want all packages updated. ;) -- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/ gpg: 6401 D02A A35F 55E9 D7DD 71C5 52EF A366 D3F6 65FE Is freedom really slavery, Mister Reed? Is this bug really a feature, Mister Reed? --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
jfm wrote: It is somewhat less intuitive, yes _ and further was unannounced, and undocumented, while this ordering is really an important config tool for users, and there were several previous msgs on the lists pointing out its use. So the change definitely wasn't done optimally. Undocumented and undefined behavior is not something you go out of your way to announce changes to. ;) There's no reason tree order should matter, highest version always wins. If you're hand-editing packages so that they're not the same between different trees, it's not supported *anyways*. -- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/ gpg: 6401 D02A A35F 55E9 D7DD 71C5 52EF A366 D3F6 65FE Is freedom really slavery, Mister Reed? Is this bug really a feature, Mister Reed? --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
Benjamin Reed wrote: Martin Costabel wrote: Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Why isn't the order of Trees important? This has annoyed me, too. I seem to remember someone saying that it is now, since one of the recent shakeups, the *reverse* order of the Trees line that is used. If true, I would consider this a serious bug. Fink always picks the newest epoch/version/revision tuple regardless of tree order. The only time tree order matters is if you somehow happen to have 2 different versions of the same versioned package in different trees (which shouldn't happen unless you messed with a package and put it in local, in which case you reap what you sow). I hadn't read Randal's message completely, sorry. Of course, if you have a higher version-revision anywhere, it will be used. I was talking about the other situation where you just want to try a small modification of the latest version. It used to be possible to copy it into local, modify it there, and have it used by fink automatically. I would not call this messing, but a consistent use of the Trees line. Unfortunately, it doesn't work any more. -- Martin --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
then just add a .1 to the revision that is what i do. --- TS http://southofheaven.org Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 9-Dec-03, at 1:19 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: Benjamin Reed wrote: Martin Costabel wrote: Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Why isn't the order of Trees important? This has annoyed me, too. I seem to remember someone saying that it is now, since one of the recent shakeups, the *reverse* order of the Trees line that is used. If true, I would consider this a serious bug. Fink always picks the newest epoch/version/revision tuple regardless of tree order. The only time tree order matters is if you somehow happen to have 2 different versions of the same versioned package in different trees (which shouldn't happen unless you messed with a package and put it in local, in which case you reap what you sow). I hadn't read Randal's message completely, sorry. Of course, if you have a higher version-revision anywhere, it will be used. I was talking about the other situation where you just want to try a small modification of the latest version. It used to be possible to copy it into local, modify it there, and have it used by fink automatically. I would not call this messing, but a consistent use of the Trees line. Unfortunately, it doesn't work any more. -- Martin --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Fink-devel] Trees not searched in order?
Martin: It will work if you move local/main to be the last item in your Trees line in fink.conf. -- Dave --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
