On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:58 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:48 AM, William G. Scott wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. The 10.6 64-bit tree of fink is in a situation where things in
>> "unstable" work but in "stable" don't (older versions, no gfortran
>> 4.4, etc). Maybe this is a good chanc
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:48 AM, William G. Scott wrote:
2. The 10.6 64-bit tree of fink is in a situation where things in
"unstable" work but in "stable" don't (older versions, no gfortran
4.4, etc). Maybe this is a good chance to move everything en masse
that works into stable.
Bill,
Yes, i
Having opened this can of worms (sorry), may I add two humble
suggestions:
1. Roll-your-own X11, I agree, would best be avoided. Instead, let's
take advantage of the stability of X11 in 10.6.
My understanding from Jeremy, once he got done working me over, was
that the idea is to have a com
On Aug 30, 2009, at 9:22 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
Jack Howarth committed:
Log Message:
non-maintainer update to zip 3.0-1
RCS file: /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.4/unstable/main/finkinfo/base/
zip.info,v
--- zip.info20 Jan 2006 20:19:36 - 1.1
+++ zip.info30 Aug 2009 22:51:58 -
Jack Howarth committed:
> Log Message:
> non-maintainer update to zip 3.0-1
>
> RCS file: /cvsroot/fink/dists/10.4/unstable/main/finkinfo/base/zip.info,v
> --- zip.info 20 Jan 2006 20:19:36 - 1.1
> +++ zip.info 30 Aug 2009 22:51:58 - 1.2
> -Version: 2.31
> +Version: 3.0
[...]
>
On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 06:50:42PM -0400, Daniel Johnson wrote:
I've been cleaning the .la files in my library packages for a while
now.
I use perl -pi -e "s/dependency_libs=.*$/dependency_libs=''/" %i/
lib/*.la in InstallScript, which just
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:48:33PM -0400, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 06:50:42PM -0400, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been cleaning the .la files in my library packages for a while
>>> now.
>>> I use perl -pi -e "s/d
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 06:50:42PM -0400, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> I've been cleaning the .la files in my library packages for a while now.
> I use perl -pi -e "s/dependency_libs=.*$/dependency_libs=''/" %i/
> lib/*.la in InstallScript, which just clears dependency_libs altogether.
> This is al
When I tried to install the unison package, it failed. I am up to date
(fink selfupdate). Below is the output towards the end where it
failed. The error suggests a problem with the ocaml distribution.
FWIW, I found that I could install via "unison-aqua" distribution,
through there is a t
On Aug 30, 2009, at 6:20 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
Jack Howarth wrote:
Considering that Apple's X11 developers are recommending that
we tell user to nuke their installations and rebuild everything
from scratch under Snow Leopard as wel
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 07:20:40AM +0900, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
>
>> Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> Considering that Apple's X11 developers are recommending that
>>> we tell user to nuke their installations and rebuild everything
>>> from scratch
On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
Jack Howarth wrote:
Considering that Apple's X11 developers are recommending that
we tell user to nuke their installations and rebuild everything
from scratch under Snow Leopard as well as never install .la
files, why don't we take this oppo
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:22:39PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Considering that Apple's X11 developers are recommending that
> > we tell user to nuke their installations and rebuild everything
> > from scratch under Snow Leopard as well as never install .la
> > files,
Jack Howarth wrote:
> Considering that Apple's X11 developers are recommending that
> we tell user to nuke their installations and rebuild everything
> from scratch under Snow Leopard as well as never install .la
> files, why don't we take this opportunity to do just that. It may
> cause some min
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:03:24AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Daniel,
> The bzip2 support is linked into the zip and
> unzip binaries with the libbzip2 shared library.
> I am agnostic on which one we use except we need
> to look carefully at how the build is getting
> the bzip2 headers. I thi
I realize a lot of users are opposed to being forced to
rebuild everything for 10.6 (despite the merits of the
more optimized code generated under the newer gcc-4.2
compiler even for i386). One thing we can all do to
mitigate this issue is modify our CompileScripts to
build with a parallel make
Considering that Apple's X11 developers are recommending that
we tell user to nuke their installations and rebuild everything
from scratch under Snow Leopard as well as never install .la
files, why don't we take this opportunity to do just that. It may
cause some minor breakage in fink unstable (
I emailed Dave Vasilevsky earlier in this week about
my proposed updates to his zip package to 3.0 and the
update of unzip to 6.0...
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2845288&group_id=17203&atid=414256
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2845287&group_id=17203&atid=4
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:42:31AM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote:
>
> Anyway, trying to have both 32bit and 64bit for both Leopard and Snow
> Leopard, and to have an upgrade path from 32bit 10.5 to 32bit 10.6 was
> probably a mistake, given the currently available manpower.
>
> Realistically, Fi
On 30/08/2009, at 10:01, monipol wrote:
> I've just noticed that there are a couple of ConfFiles that are listed
> in more than one package (although they are related packages). Is it
> ok? If one of the packages is fink purge'd than the other will lose
> its ConfFile.
Never mind; those are Provi
Hello all,
I've just noticed that there are a couple of ConfFiles that are listed
in more than one package (although they are related packages). Is it
ok? If one of the packages is fink purge'd than the other will lose
its ConfFile.
Cheers,
--
monipol
http://finkers.wordpress.com
---
On Aug 30, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Huh? What problems? I've have...
>>
>> ii qt33.3.8-1028 Cross-Platform GUI application
>> framework
>> ii qt3-designer 3.3.8-1028 Cross-Platform GUI application
>> framework
>> ii qt3-designe
Jack Howarth wrote:
> Huh? What problems? I've have...
>
> ii qt33.3.8-1028 Cross-Platform GUI application framework
> ii qt3-designer 3.3.8-1028 Cross-Platform GUI application framework
> ii qt3-designer-s 3.3.8-1028 Cross-Platform GUI application framework
> ii qt3-
23 matches
Mail list logo
