Hi Ben,
On Feb 14, 2004, at 11:08 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
That should read of course be a limit of 300k for patches. If you
really impose a limit on 30k the list would be too long to be sent
here (-:
No, it shouldnt be 300k. 30k is quite reasona
On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
That should read of course be a limit of 300k for patches. If you
really impose a limit on 30k the list would be too long to be sent
here (-:
No, it shouldnt be 300k. 30k is quite reasonable, even generous. Doing
some quick lists i don't see man
On Feb 14, 2004, at 6:17 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
I disagree. We should not accept patches this big in fink. As pogma
said, please make it a tar.gz and put it on a web site. If you don't
have one, we do.
I don't think we should commit patches over 30k. In fact fink should
reject such patch files.
Hi again,
On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote:
Hi Ben et al.,
I agree that the huge patch is not a good solution. I leave it to the
maintainer to come up with an improved version.
However, if you want to impose a limit of 30k for patches, then the
following packages will need to b
Hi Ben et al.,
I agree that the huge patch is not a good solution. I leave it to the
maintainer to come up with an improved version.
However, if you want to impose a limit of 30k for patches, then the
following packages will need to be modified, too (sizes in bytes):
318974 ./10.2-gcc3.3/stab
On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch
files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard.
Where is this documented? I cannot find that not in the 'creating fink
packages' webpage.
- Koen.
-
David R. Morrison wrote:
[]
The error report came to this list because fink-devel is listed as the
maintainer.
One (minor) question in this context is how the package database
determines the maintainer when different versions of a package have
different maintainers. From looking at examples it se
At 0:20 +0100 15/2/04, Michèle Garoche wrote:
Le 15 févr. 2004, à 0:05, Kevin Horton a écrit :
How stable is stable? For example,
bluefish-0.10-11 crashes with a bus error when
trying to spell check. But it works
wonderfully in every other respect. Spell
checking is only a very small part o
Le 15 févr. 2004, à 0:05, Kevin Horton a écrit :
How stable is stable? For example, bluefish-0.10-11 crashes with a
bus error when trying to spell check. But it works wonderfully in
every other respect. Spell checking is only a very small part of its
functionality.
I don't agree with you, Ke
I disagree. We should not accept patches this big in fink. As pogma
said, please make it a tar.gz and put it on a web site. If you don't
have one, we do.
I don't think we should commit patches over 30k. In fact fink should
reject such patch files.
Please submit a revision to this package which
Le 14 févr. 2004, à 21:43, David R. Morrison a écrit :
As many of you know, the "stable" tree in 10.3 was created from the
corresponding tree in 10.2. Everything which was moved to 10.3 builds
OK
on 10.3, but there are a number of cases where the software provided by
the package no longer works,
On Feb 12, 2004, at 9:09 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
The DescDetail is one giant line, so it looks like crap on plain-text
displays. A couple of weeks ago I added a validator warning for this a
couple of weeks ago, but I don't think it's gotten into a fink-release
yet.
All desc fields should be hard w
This is a very bad policy, since you may not be aware of possible
changes to fink which may break your packages or users' systems. They
should be filtered through a developer before being used by users IMO.
Anyway, it looks like pogma gave you cvs commit access, so please
commit your packages a
At 15:43 -0500 14/2/04, Dave Morrison wrote:
Dear Fink folks,
As many of you know, the "stable" tree in 10.3 was created from the
corresponding tree in 10.2. Everything which was moved to 10.3 builds OK
on 10.3, but there are a number of cases where the software provided by
the package no longer
Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch
files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard.
-Ben
On Feb 13, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
That appears to be some hard-coded /sw. I don't think the validator
catches it, however..."whoever wrote the check
On Feb 14, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
Martin Costabel wrote:
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
[]
As to the FAQ - I didn't expected this kind of "auto-detection", I
expected that I need somehow add manually Apple's x11. So I just
didn't guessed that this is faq.
It is a good p
Martin:
Your proposed ghostscript, ghostscript-fonts, and system-ghostscript8
packages look good to me.
Jeff:
If you agree, I think we should move all three of these into fink.
-- Dave
Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David R. Morrison wrote:
> []
> > In light of the apparent c
TheSin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't commited anything to stable... talk to Dave about that.
> ---
> TS
> http://southofheaven.org
> Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
>
> On 12-Feb-04, at 12:44 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
>
> > TheSin wrote:
> >
> >> this seems t
I'm jumping into this thread a bit late, since I was out of town for a few
days.
I hope that everyone is bearing in mind a crucial fact of life: whatever
we do in terms of dependencies has to be translated (at the end of the
day) into dependencies that the Debian tools (dpkg and apt-get) can handl
Darian Lanx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Macks wrote:
>
> > I'm maintaining a package, the source for which is not going to be
> > easily accessible from that project's server. It's LPGL, so can I just
> > stick it somewhere in fink's SourceForge CVS?
> No.
>
> Where?
> You can ask bbrau
Dear Fink folks,
As many of you know, the "stable" tree in 10.3 was created from the
corresponding tree in 10.2. Everything which was moved to 10.3 builds OK
on 10.3, but there are a number of cases where the software provided by
the package no longer works, or doesn't work as expected.
We need
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
[]
As to the FAQ - I didn't expected this kind of "auto-detection", I
expected that I need somehow add manually Apple's x11. So I just didn't
guessed that this is faq.
It is a good principle to assume that any question you want to ask has
been asked before or migh
Martin Costabel wrote:
You guys are really fast. It helps, of course, if one knows perl, I
guess :-) I don't, I have more or less been feeling my way around in the
dark. This looks good. In VirtPackage.pm there are two 'print "missing"'
where I would have put "missing\n".
Oop! Good catch, fixe
Benjamin Reed wrote:
You would run "fink-virtual-pkgs --debug", it puts the debug output to
STDERR.
You guys are really fast. It helps, of course, if one knows perl, I
guess :-) I don't, I have more or less been feeling my way around in the
dark. This looks good. In VirtPackage.pm there are two
Martin Costabel wrote:
Something like this should probably go into the fink package or it could
even be merged with the fink-virtual-pkgs script, maybe activated by
"fink-virtual-pkgs --debug-x11" or something similar.
OK, I've checked in an analog to what your script does to the virtual
packag
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Martin Costabel wrote:
>
> The script (6kB) is in my exp directory on cvs, and it is also available
> here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/costabel/fink-x11-debug
>
> To use it, save it anywhere and
> - either make it executable and run it as "./fink-x11-debug"
> - or run it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
(well, within reason, no naked ascii art girls please :-) ).
Why not? From my marketing point of view that would be a feature to be
desired
- -d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFALjfsPMoa
Martin Costabel wrote:
>
> The script (6kB) is in my exp directory on cvs, and it is also available
> here: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/costabel/fink-x11-debug
>
> To use it, save it anywhere and
> - either make it executable and run it as "./fink-x11-debug"
> - or run it as "perl fink-x11-debug"
>
> S
Alexander Hansen wrote:
On Feb 13, 2004, at 4:46 PM, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
system-xfree86 is now a virtual package, which is supposed to
show up automatically if X11 is installed correctly. It appears that
the installer sometimes leaves out files. There's a FAQ on this:
http://f
29 matches
Mail list logo
