> Or one asks the author to provide a true compatibility_version. This
> only requires changing one line in src/Makefile: In the definition of
> LPHASE, instead of "-release ${RELEASE}", one would put "-version-info
> 1:0:0" or something. But it would also mean that the author would need
> to t
Apparently fink (dpkg ?) doesn't notice this error:
Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
gcc42: Depends: gcc42-shlibs (>= 0:4.1.-20070124) but
4.1.-20070124 is to be installed
But apt-get does.
Fink shows:
i gcc42 4.1.-20070124
i gcc42-shlibs
I see now that this is coming from the %e expansion in gcc42.info, but
I don't know how to fix it without breaking something else.
Robert T Wyatt wrote:
> Apparently fink (dpkg ?) doesn't notice this error:
>
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
>gcc42: Depends: gcc42-
On 2/2/07, Robert T Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see now that this is coming from the %e expansion in gcc42.info, but
> I don't know how to fix it without breaking something else.
>
> Robert T Wyatt wrote:
> > Apparently fink (dpkg ?) doesn't notice this error:
> >
> > Sorry, but the follow
> Since this version of gcc42 doesn't have a declared Epoch, the %e
> should be removed from the dependency on gcc42-shlibs (carryover from
> the prior version, perhaps).
Okay, so if I remove %e: from gcc42.info, how do I get apt to see the
change? I've tried fink scanpackages, fink index, and sud
On 2/2/07, Robert T Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since this version of gcc42 doesn't have a declared Epoch, the %e
> > should be removed from the dependency on gcc42-shlibs (carryover from
> > the prior version, perhaps).
>
> Okay, so if I remove %e: from gcc42.info, how do I get apt to see
Alexander Hansen wrote:
> You'd have to rebuild the package--the Depends information is coded
> into the .deb file. (or you could manually unpack the .deb file, edit
> the control file, and repack it).
>
> The issue is that fink treats 0:x.y.z = x.y.z, but apt thinks 0:x.y.z >> x.y.z
Thanks! I u
On 2/2/07, Robert T Wyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Hansen wrote:
> > You'd have to rebuild the package--the Depends information is coded
> > into the .deb file. (or you could manually unpack the .deb file, edit
> > the control file, and repack it).
> >
> > The issue is that fink trea
