Am 28.07.2005 um 19:48 schrieb Jack Howarth:
Still one has to ask exactly which compilers in the gcc4 package
we should be focusing on? The gfortran compiler specifically is making
really good progress. With patches to be added today, it should pass
almost all of the NIST Fortran validation
On 30 Jul 2005, at 04:27, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
Yeah, we could remove leading whitespace from all heredocs. I can't
think of anything that's really whitespace-dependent and would
therefore break.
PatchScript:
#!/bin/sh -ev
sed -i '/regex/i\
\tbar1\
\tbar2' foo/Makefile.in
or for a
[For the historic background of this, please refer to https://
sourceforge.net/tracker/?
func=detailatid=117203aid=755128group_id=17203]
Hi there,
currently, Fink supports two kind of virtual packages:
* runtime virtuals, created by fink. Th
I am sorry, I accidentally hit the sent button so you got a garbled
message!
Anyway:
With this mail I'd like to point to an inconsistency in fink's usage,
and want to give everybody a chance to comment on proposed plans on
how to resolve this... For the historic background of this, please
One confusing thing is with 'fink remove'. If there's an actual
package 'foo' and also a package 'bar' which provides 'foo', what
should 'fink remove foo' do?
1) Remove just foo, if it's installed?
2) Remove foo and bar if either are installed?
Dave
PGP.sig
Description: This is a
On 30 Jul 2005, at 13:58, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
The new algorithm doesn't remove all leading whitespace. It removes
from each line a *maximum* of whitespace characters as are on the
first line of that block. So if I do:
Info2:
PatchScript:
#!/bin/sh
echo END somefile
On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Fink is not (!) supposed to be a test-bed for an unreleased
compiler. It is easy enough to build gcc from cvs.
Yes, exactly. Fink is a distribution, not a testing system. There's
no reason that fink (lowercase, the package manager) can't be
Yo folks,
I was tending to many old open bug reports on our tracker for the
past two weeks. During this time, I had to advice people several
times on how to properly upgrade their fink/Fink, X11 and other
things. This lead me to consult our docs. What I saw was somewhat
saddening :-/.
On Jul 30, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:One confusing thing is with 'fink remove'. If there's an actual package 'foo' and also a package 'bar' which provides 'foo', what should 'fink remove foo' do?1) Remove just foo, if it's installed?2) Remove foo and bar if either are installed?Dave
I've got a public-ish wiki set up at http://ldx3.psfc.mit.edu:2500/(email me for the password)The purpose of this site is to provide a readily-available place to jot down things that may need to go into the real documents, as well as more ephemeral things:* policies that come up in discussions on
On Jul 30, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:On Jul 30, 2005, at 15:24:05, Alexander Hansen wrote: IMO we shouldn't have 'bar' provide 'foo' as well as have aseparate 'foo' package. This is a continual source of chaos.We should have a common functionality e.g. 'foo-bar', andthen both 'foo' and
On Jul 30, 2005, at 18:00:34, Alexander Hansen wrote:
On Jul 30, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
Package: host
Conflicts: bind9
Replaces: bind9
And I'd say here Provides: host-command
Package: bind9
Provides: host
(once again Provides: host-command)
Conflicts: host
Replaces: host
12 matches
Mail list logo
