Re: [Fink-devel] librep-0.16.2-11

Amgine wrote: unix_dl.c:466: error: `Dl_info' undeclared (first use in this function) FAQ#6.16 I get build errors involving `Dl_info'. http://fink.sourceforge.net/faq/comp-general.php?#dlfcn-from-oo -- Martin --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by:

Re: [Fink-devel] librep-0.14-28

FAQ 6.16 Peter Michael wrote: Hey, I got the following error when trying to install gnome bundle, so I tried librep by itself and still no such luck. The same error comes up each time: unix_dl.c: In function `rep_open_d

[Fink-devel] librep-0.14-28

Hey, I got the following error when trying to install gnome bundle, so I tried librep by itself and still no such luck. The same error comes up each time: unix_dl.c: In function `rep_open_dl_library': unix_dl.c:328: warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer target type unix_dl.c: In fun

[Fink-devel] librep-0.16.2-11

gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../src -I.. -no-cpp-precomp -I/sw/include -g -O0 unix_dl.c -fno-common -DPIC -o unix_dl.lo unix_dl.c: In function `rep_open_dl_library': unix_dl.c:328: warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer target type unix_dl.c: In function `rep_find_c_symbol': unix_dl.

Re: [Fink-devel] Checking MacOSX version number

From http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=943986&group_id=172 03&atid=414256 > I added darwin (>= 7.4.0) in the Build field. On 5/28/04 1:40 AM, "Sébastien Maret" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm working on a package that compiles and runs only on MacOSX10.3.4, because > of

Re: [Fink-devel] Checking MacOSX version number

yorick already has a fink maintainer, david munro.. it wasn't moved to the 10.3 tree since it didn't work. Since it does now, it can just be updated. See: http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/yorick David Munroe stopped to maintain this package for some time. I submitted one month ago

Re: [Fink-devel] Checking MacOSX version number

On May 30, 2004, at 2:08 AM, Sébastien Maret wrote: Le 30 mai 04, à 10:56, Ben Hines a écrit : On May 28, 2004, at 1:40 AM, Sébastien Maret wrote: I'm working on a package that compiles and runs only on MacOSX10.3.4, because of a libm bug in previous versions. There is no such thing as libm on any

Re: [Fink-devel] validating BuildDependsOnly

> It would also make it straightforward > to be able to rebuild a .deb later even if the original .info file has > gone missing. Well, almost. The problem is, you also need the correct version of the .patch file to rebuild the .deb. And .patch files can get very large, so I'm pretty sure we *don

Re: [Fink-devel] BuildDependsOnly is a bad idea?

The reason for the BuildDependsOnly flag is to make it possible to upgrade a library in the future, if the upgrade is not binary-backwards-compatible. An example is the "neon" package. Currently we are using neon24, but in the recent past we used neon23 (and many earlier ones). If you have neon2

[Fink-devel] BuildDependsOnly is a bad idea?

I guess BuildDependsOnly flag is intended to improve scalability, but I think it is a bad idea. The problem is library-to-library dependency. For example, every applications depending on gtk+2 must also depend on atk1, glib2-dev, pango1-xft2-dev, gettext-dev and libiconv-dev. This is major source

Re: [Fink-devel] validating BuildDependsOnly

Actually, I like the idea of including the .info in the .deb. It seems more future-proof than a one-time hack like making a BuildDependsOnly dir. Having the .info would make it possibly to do a lot more validation on the .deb than before (e.g. did all of the Files: entries make it into the sp

[Fink-devel] validating BuildDependsOnly

Dear Fink developers, For some time, I've wanted to have a way to validate that packages are using the BuildDependsOnly field correctly. The test I want to employ is this: if the package installs anything into /sw/include, it should be declaring BuildDependsOnly to be true. (This doesn't guarant

Re: [Fink-devel] Checking MacOSX version number

Le 30 mai 04, à 10:56, Ben Hines a écrit : On May 28, 2004, at 1:40 AM, Sébastien Maret wrote: I'm working on a package that compiles and runs only on MacOSX10.3.4, because of a libm bug in previous versions. There is no such thing as libm on any OS X. libm is just a symlink to libSystem, the sta

Re: [Fink-devel] Checking MacOSX version number

On May 28, 2004, at 1:40 AM, Sébastien Maret wrote: I'm working on a package that compiles and runs only on MacOSX10.3.4, because of a libm bug in previous versions. How can I check in my package the version of MacOSX before compiling ? There is no such thing as libm on any OS X. libm is just a s

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: Checking MacOSX version number

On May 28, 2004, at 5:23 AM, Charles Lepple wrote: Sébastien Maret wrote: I'm working on a package that compiles and runs only on MacOSX10.3.4, because of a libm bug in previous versions. How can I check in my package the version of MacOSX before compiling ? actually, I guess you would need both "

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [Fink-users] Upgrading to 10.3.4 and emacs21

On May 28, 2004, at 7:52 AM, David R. Morrison wrote: but this principle has always been more a pious wish than reality. Could you explain in more detail what you mean? I think it's a pretty accurate comment. It has been stated goal of fink to make sure that fink packages always compile the same

[Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/utils rzip.patch,NONE,1.1 rzip.info,1.1,1.2

Revert this -Ben On May 27, 2004, at 6:33 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: Update of /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/utils In directory sc8-pr-cvs1.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv2740 Modified Files: rzip.info Added Files: rzip.patch Log Message: rzip compression program Index

Re: [Fink-devel] Busted /etc due to a fink bug?

On May 29, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Martin Langhoff (NZL) wrote: And that was the last time /etc was seen alive. After a moment of panic, I fixed it mounting the iBook as a FW device -- connected to another mac. Recreated the symlink, easy enough. However, I find distressing that I was able to do this s

Re: [Fink-devel] Patch and PatchScript ignored

On May 29, 2004, at 11:43 PM, Martin Langhoff (NZL) wrote: Building my 1st fink packages and I cannot for the life of me get Patch or PatchScript entries to be observed. Is there any mechanism to debug this situation? If I prevent the builddir from being removed, I can apply the patch successful