Will do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I can't do anything now, have to leave, but if anybody wants to check
>it into unstable, go for it.
¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·.,
Justin F. Hallett
CAISnet Inc.
2nd Floor, 11635 - 160
At 20:51 Uhr -0500 17.02.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>I'm looking for a volunteer to check out the Nautilus package on the
>package submission tracker.
>
>I can't check this one myself, because it depends on mozilla and I am one
>of the people for whom mozilla does not compile correctly.
>
>Nev
On Sunday, February 17, 2002, at 10:32 , George Madrid wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am brand new to this list. I am creating a new .info file for the
> inform z-machine compiler for interactive fiction, and I have two
> questions. One procedural and another technical.
It's always good to have new m
Hi there,
I am brand new to this list. I am creating a new .info file for
the inform z-machine compiler for interactive fiction, and I
have two questions. One procedural and another technical.
First, what is the standard procedure for testing and certifying
a .info file for inclusion in the s
Sylvain, the problem (as a few people have pointed out) is that you cannot
include the Conflicts lines in readline and readline-shlibs. You need
the Replaces lines, but not the conflicts lines.
(The reason is: if the current readline "conflicts" with an earlier version
of readline, upgrading won
I'm looking for a volunteer to check out the Nautilus package on the
package submission tracker.
I can't check this one myself, because it depends on mozilla and I am one
of the people for whom mozilla does not compile correctly.
Nevertheless, this package might be useful for people who have moz
Notice that the license files for package foo go in
/sw/share/doc/foo/
So if we have foo, foo-bin, and foo-shlibs, the license files will go in
/sw/share/doc/foo
/sw/share/doc/foo-bin
/sw/share/doc/foo-shlibs
The developer will have the option of using the DocFiles line for any of
the pa
At 10:11 Uhr +1100 18.02.2002, David Stanaway wrote:
>On Friday, February 15, 2002, at 08:31 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>
>>IMHO, it is cleaner to have the "Files" field, splitoffs really
>>shouldn't do much more than to contain some files that used to be
>>in the master package. Using "files", we als
At 8:20 Uhr +0900 18.02.2002, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>I thought that it was against policy to have stuff in /sw/include
>with the same name as stuff in /usr/include. :)
It's not really against any policy. In the case of db it has some
pros and cons, but I guess it's better to not add this symlin
I thought that it was against policy to have stuff in
/sw/include with the same name as stuff in /usr/include. :)
Does this package check for db_185.h? This isn't in /usr/include
and could be symlinked in the db package.
Does subversion require db3/4 or would it be happy with db in
libSystem?
On Friday, February 15, 2002, at 08:31 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> IMHO, it is cleaner to have the "Files" field, splitoffs really
> shouldn't do much more than to contain some files that used to be in
> the master package. Using "files", we also gurantee that the packages
> don't contain identica
I wonder, would it make sense for those two packages to put a symlink
from /sw/include/db?/db.h to /sw/include/db.h ?
Compiling subversion required that, otherwise it used the db.h from
/usr/include, which isn't nice. I know I could have fixed this by
forcing it to use -I/sw/include/db4 in its
Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>
> Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 09:44 PM, Max Horn a écrit :
>
> >> The Conflicts is correct, it is followed by a Replaces so one
> >> *can* upgrade
> >
> > Is it? Did you test it to verify?
>
> yes, I just tested it by removing readline readline-shlibs, then
Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 09:44 PM, Max Horn a écrit :
>> The Conflicts is correct, it is followed by a Replaces so one
>> *can* upgrade
>
> Is it? Did you test it to verify?
yes, I just tested it by removing readline readline-shlibs, then
install readline-4.2, then install r
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:44:48PM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
> At 21:22 Uhr +0100 17.02.2002, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
> >Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 09:01 PM, Martin Costabel a écrit :
> >
> >>Not me in any case. It's Sylvain who is testing :-)
> >>I hope he finishes soon. Readline is pretty essential
Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
> The Conflicts is correct, it is followed by a Replaces so one *can*
> upgrade
Then why
1) does it not work for me nor for Olivier?
2) none of the other 15 -shlibs*.info has such a Conflicts: line?
--
Martin
___
Fink-de
At 21:22 Uhr +0100 17.02.2002, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 09:01 PM, Martin Costabel a écrit :
>
>>Not me in any case. It's Sylvain who is testing :-)
>>I hope he finishes soon. Readline is pretty essential for fink.
>
> yes sorry about all that testing
No, I am not
"Olivier M." wrote:
> mmm, in the mean time, is there a way to remove the buggy readline
> and to replace it with the "standard" version ? (from apt-get install).
> Tried a few things, but I don't see a way without removing all
> packages needing readline.
fink install readline-4.2-3
--
Martin
Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 09:01 PM, Martin Costabel a écrit :
> Not me in any case. It's Sylvain who is testing :-)
> I hope he finishes soon. Readline is pretty essential for fink.
yes sorry about all that testing, a working (I hope =) revision is
now in cvs
the -compat
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 09:01:37PM +0100, Martin Costabel wrote:
> "Olivier M." wrote:
> > well, that's a lot of packages... is this non-backward-compatible
> > update really necessary, or are you just testing :) ?
>
> Not me in any case. It's Sylvain who is testing :-)
> I hope he finishes soon.
"Olivier M." wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 08:21:29PM +0100, Martin Costabel wrote:
> > > Failed: can't install package readline-shlibs-4.2a-2
> >
> > The new readline/readline-shlibs package cannot be upgraded to without
> > applying force or removing all packages that depend on readline.
>
At 19:04 Uhr +0100 17.02.2002, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 06:17 PM, Max Horn a écrit :
>
>>1) Why this change?
>
> The previous version (4.2) was mantained by chrisP and he had
>to manually create shared libs because readline didn't support
>darwin. This by-hand shar
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 08:21:29PM +0100, Martin Costabel wrote:
> > Failed: can't install package readline-shlibs-4.2a-2
>
> The new readline/readline-shlibs package cannot be upgraded to without
> applying force or removing all packages that depend on readline.
well, that's a lot of packages..
"Olivier M." wrote:
> readline-shlibs conflicts with readline (<< 4.2a-2)
This is the bug. Why is there a "Conflicts: readline (<< 4.2a-2)" in
readline-shlibs*.info? The result is
> Failed: can't install package readline-shlibs-4.2a-2
The new readline/readline-shlibs package cannot be upgrade
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 07:08:54PM +0100, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
> > just for info, the update to latest readline libs broke
> > some things on my system, especially the bash :/
>
> Yes that's because the compatibility version has been downgraded.
> Everything that depends on readline ha
Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 06:23 PM, Olivier M. a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 05:56:39PM +0100, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>> I've just updated readline to readline & readline-shlibs. Below is
>> the list of maintainers that should change their Depends: readline to
>
> just for info, th
Le dimanche 17 février 2002, à 06:17 PM, Max Horn a écrit :
> 1) Why this change?
The previous version (4.2) was mantained by chrisP and he had to
manually create shared libs because readline didn't support darwin. This
by-hand shared libraries has 4.2.0 compatibility version.
myXtie on the IRC channel had the same problem. He had to rebuild bash
and gnucash to make everything work.
On Sunday, February 17, 2002, at 12:23 PM, Olivier M. wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 05:56:39PM +0100, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>> I've just updated readline to readline & readline-shlib
On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 05:56:39PM +0100, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
> I've just updated readline to readline & readline-shlibs. Below is
> the list of maintainers that should change their Depends: readline to
just for info, the update to latest readline libs broke
some things on my system, espe
At 17:56 Uhr +0100 17.02.2002, Sylvain Cuaz wrote:
>Hi,
>
> I've just updated readline to readline & readline-shlibs.
>Below is the list of maintainers that should change their Depends:
>readline to
>
>Depends: readline-shlibs
>BuildDepends: readline
>
>Please note that the compatibility v
Hi,
I've just updated readline to readline & readline-shlibs. Below is
the list of maintainers that should change their Depends: readline to
Depends: readline-shlibs
BuildDepends: readline
Please note that the compatibility version of the previous library (4.2)
was 4.2.0
[r21m246:~]
31 matches
Mail list logo
