Re: [Fink-devel] How'd I get a completely broken g++-4.0?

Alexander K. Hansen wrote: > It could have been Apple's installer. It loves to miss a file now and > then to keep one on one's toes. It's in DevSDK.pkg: > Could be. There wasn't a /usr/include/c++ at all... Anyway, upgrading to xcode 2.3 seems to have fixed it. _

[Fink-devel] How'd I get a completely broken g++-4.0?

fermi:/tmp anthony$ g++-3.3 foo.cpp fermi:/tmp anthony$ echo $? 0 fermi:/tmp anthony$ g++-4.0 foo.cpp foo.cpp:1:20: error: iostream: No such file or directory foo.cpp: In function ‘int main()’: foo.cpp:4: error: ‘cout’ is not a member of ‘std’ fermi:/tmp anthony$ cat foo.cpp #include int main()

Re: [Fink-devel] Missing dependencies (ethereal-ssl or gtk+2)

Martin Costabel wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > [] > >> I'm rather curios why you'd want a IneheritedBuildDepends instead of >> just fixing the Depends handling --- because, currently, the >> installed gtk+2-dev is very much broken[0], and >> Ine

Re: [Fink-devel] Missing dependencies (ethereal-ssl or gtk+2)

On May 7, 2005, at 12:39, Martin Costabel wrote: glib and glib2 are not good examples; they are compatible. But there are many *-dev packages that conflict with and replace other *-dev packages and are to be freely swapped in and out during package building. If any other package had a Depends

Re: [Fink-devel] Missing dependencies (ethereal-ssl or gtk+2)

Peter O'Gorman wrote: > | I'm sure there is a good reason for this, but that really sounds rather > | backwards... > > Yes there is a good reason. Think for a second and you'll realize what it > is Packages which are "Build Depends Only" can not depend on other, > unrelated, packages. > It

Re: [Fink-devel] Missing dependencies (ethereal-ssl or gtk+2)

Martin Costabel wrote: > > gtk+2-dev must not depend on anything. A quick check didn't show anything in fink packaging policy about -dev packages not being able to depend on anything, and indeed gtk+2-dev does depend on things: Depends: gtk+2-shlibs (= 2.4.9-8), gtk+2 (= 2.4.9-8), darwin (>= 8-1

[Fink-devel] Missing dependencies (ethereal-ssl or gtk+2)

In order for the build of ethereal-ssl to find GTK+2, I had to manually install: pango1-xft2-dev atk1 I suspect gtk+2-dev should depend on these. Otherwise: pkg-config --cflags gtk+-2.0 fails, complaining about those two packages missing. Which makes ethereal's configure

Re: [Fink-devel] license question

On May 2, 2005, at 19:58, Alexander Strange wrote: That looks functionally identical to the BSD license with the advertising clause. I think you mean WITHOUT the advertising clause. The BSD advertising clause says that the notice must appear in all ads, documentation, etc. talking about the

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: License for .info and .patch files

Benjamin Reed wrote: +1 I think public domain is a good idea for such things. Public domain doesn't do things like disclaim liability. I suggest the MIT X11 license instead: Copyright (c) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associat

Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files

Trevor Harmon wrote: Some parts, yes, are facts: the name of the package, its dependencies, its home page. Others parts are not: the DescPort, for instance, or PatchScript. For this reason, one cannot say that the entire work is exempt from copyright law. I agree --- and that's what I said in h

Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files

Trevor Harmon wrote: On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: But once you filter out the idea (also not copyrightable, see Title 17, Sec. 102(b)), I suspect you'll find that the expression of that idea is quite limited by the technical and policy requirements of the info

Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files

Trevor Harmon wrote: On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:23 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: What about an almanac? A news broadcast? An encyclopedia? These are all mere collections of facts. Are you trying to tell me that these cannot be copyrighted? Copyright law in the US covers creative expression, not facts

Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files

David R. Morrison wrote: But what about the .info files? Should we declare them to be part of fink, and therefore under the GPL? Can we do this retroactively, even though we didn't make it clear to contributers in the past? Most of a finkinfo file is just a statement of facts, and is nearly enti

Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl

David R. Morrison wrote: Anthony, Thanks very much for this very helpful message. I'm curious of there is any difference for software released under the LGPL instead of the GPL. Can it legally link to openSSL? LGPL Sec. 6 seems to allow this: 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may als

Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl

As one of the regular participants on debian-legal, and probably one of the participants in that thread, I'd like to clarify a few things: - OpenSSL is not considered 'part of the system libraries', and thus does not fall under that excemption in the GPL. Debian can not ever use the system libr

Re: [Fink-devel] dpkg-deb failed, exit code 10 or 11

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 02:40, Martin Costabel wrote: > (in particular, you cannot reinstall dpkg when > dpkg is not working). You most certainly can. .deb's are "ar" files. You can use ar x to unpack: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:tmp$ mkdir /tmp/foo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:tmp$ cd /tmp/foo

[Fink-devel] Ethereal-ssl out of date?

http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/ethereal lists there being a 0.9.16-11 ethereal but only 0.9.14-1 ethereal-ssl. Any reason for that? --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sha

Re: [Fink-devel] selfupdate-cvs broken?

On Nov 20, 2003, at 17:41, Darian Lanx wrote: Please note. If you are using the "unstable" package manager versioned 0.17.1 and you are NOT behind a firewall or a developer, Well, I have several packages I maintain locally, but they're in local, so I doubt rsync would blow them away (I hope!). A

Re: [Fink-devel] selfupdate-cvs broken?

On Nov 20, 2003, at 16:46, TheSin wrote: yes x11-wm isn't the problem, those are all Us look for an other letter higher up Hmmm, you're right --- there were some "files in the way" further up. Thanks. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: S

Re: [Fink-devel] sources for xc-20031117.tar.bz2

On Nov 20, 2003, at 14:47, Alexander K. Hansen wrote: This can happen if the upstream site (and mirrors) removes the tarball before it gets mirrored onto the master (opendarwin) site. I got bitten this way by pkg-order, which has apparently been purged by Debian. http://archive.debian.org/d

[Fink-devel] selfupdate-cvs broken?

U 10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/x11-wm/fvwm2-2.4.15-11.patch U 10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/x11-wm/fvwm2-no-gnome-2.4.15-11.info U 10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/x11-wm/icewm-1.2.2-1.info U 10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/x11-wm/icewm-1.2.2-1.patch U 10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/x11-wm/icewm-basic-1.2.2-1.inf

[Fink-devel] /man directory?

It seems that at some point I aquired a /man directory. Fermi:/ anthony$ ls -lR /man total 0 drwxr-xr-x 9 root admin 306 27 Oct 19:33 man3 /man/man3: total 160 -r--r--r-- 1 root admin 4710 27 Oct 19:22 NetSNMP::ASN.3pm -r--r--r-- 1 root admin 5463 27 Oct 19:22 NetSNMP::OID.3pm -r--r--r-

Re: [Fink-devel] Dpkg...

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 20:19, John Davidorff Pell wrote: > Aren't there ways > of simply extracting the files within a deb? Then we could parse the > pre/post scripts ourselves... anyone up for a dpkg replacement? ;-) try 'man dpkg' before re-inventing the wheel: dpkg --force-not-root

Re: [Fink-devel] Dpkg...

On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 02:04, John Davidorff Pell wrote: > But this does not work as intended. Dpkg still tries to set group and > user IDs even tho they are already correct, resulting in permission > denied errors. :-( --force-all seems to make it continue anyway. Actually, on my Debian system w

Re: [Fink-devel] ABI Changes: 3.1 -> 3.3

On Sunday, Jun 29, 2003, at 12:12 US/Eastern, David R. Morrison wrote: What does this imply for our binary distribution? fyi, Debian renamed almost every C++ library package to deal with this one. --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-

Re: [Fink-devel] essential splitoffs

On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 12:56 US/Eastern, David R. Morrison wrote: And in fact, we've had a policy (unstated, I believe) that there was no need to specify any dependencies on an essential package. Debian's policy on the matter is that versioned dependencies on essential packages must be declar

Re: [Fink-devel] essential splitoffs

On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 16:12 US/Eastern, David R. Morrison wrote: At that point, it might be possible to switch which package is essential from gettext to gettext2. However, if other packages have *assumed* that every essential package is present and doesn't need to be declared, then it

Re: [Fink-devel] essential splitoffs

On Saturday, Jun 7, 2003, at 11:16 US/Eastern, David R. Morrison wrote: 1) Proposed New Policy: You must declare any needed Depends or BuildDepends of your package on essential packages. If you do this for even unversioned dependencies, what's the point of having essential packages anymore? -

Re: [Fink-devel] essential splitoffs

On Monday, Jun 9, 2003, at 13:11 US/Eastern, David R. Morrison wrote: If other packages have not been required to specify their dependency on gettext-shlibs, things will break at that stage. Ummm, if packages depend on a specific version of gettext (like a library dependency does), shouldn't the

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: Competition for Fink: gentoo

Later, when dependencies change or packages are removed, portage can use 'world' to figure out what packages were installed as dependencies but are no longer needed, and 'clean' them out. At least for the bindist, aptitude would do this for you.

Re: glut license (was Re: [Fink-devel] MD5)

On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 17:43, David R. Morrison wrote: > I looked at glut, and I guess there is some ambiguity in the sentence > "The programs are not in the > public domain, but they are freely distributable without licensing > fees." >From /usr/share/doc/libglut3/copyright on my Debian system:

Re: [Fink-devel] Proposal: move all info-docs into splitoffs

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 19:03, Carsten Klapp wrote: > The info files for the various Fink packages seem to take up a lot of > space. I just rm /sw/share/info/* which is fine for my personal > machine, but I had this splitoff idea and wonder how others feel. It's really the wrong solution. The rig

Re: [Fink-devel] Fink distfiles mirror now up

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 17:19, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > I always get a red flag when people say "ls $SOMEPATTERN". Hmmm, starting a Useless use of ls award? Find can be useful there, btw: find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 ... not only does it recurse, but it ignores directories! And g

Re: [Fink-devel] Epoch

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:39, Max Horn wrote: > the 5.0-rc -> 4.999-rc sounds like shit 5.0alpha < 5.0beta < 5.0rc < 5.0rel Someone on debian-devel came up with that once. I think I've remembered it right. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [Fink-devel] Advice needed: manpage filename conflicts

On Sat, 2003-03-01 at 21:08, David R. Morrison wrote: > We gotta get you on the Fink team, Anthony... you understand the Debian > tools better than we do! Thanks ;-) > > So how does Debian handle the situation where two different pacakges want > to provide executables and/or man pages with the s

Re: [Fink-devel] Advice needed: manpage filename conflicts

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 07:03, David R. Morrison wrote: > Fink has borrowed from Debian something called the "alternatives" system. > If there are two packages which want to install files with the same name, Noo! That's not what alternatives is for. Its for two packages that provide the same (or

Re: [Fink-devel] tetex upgrade problems

On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 21:26, David R. Morrison wrote: > Hmmm... Yeah, I could do it in tetex-texmf... It's tricky, though; I only > want to make the tetex-base script fail if its an old version of tetex-base > that's installed. OK, I will try some more... Some suggestions on how to do this:

Re: [Fink-devel] tetex upgrade problems

On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 17:46, David R. Morrison wrote: > Sorry, I said it wrong before: the error is in the old PreRemove script, > not the PostRemove script. > > The problem is, the very first thing which dpkg does upon updating a > package is to execute the *old* prerm script. I would never hav

Re: [Fink-devel] tetex upgrade problems

On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 04:40 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: The problem is that the removal of files is happening in PostRemove, outside of dpkg's control. But if you can think of an alternate way to solve this problem, I would love to hear it. Have one of your scripts edit the var/lib/d

Re: [Fink-devel] tetex upgrade problems

On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 05:14, Martin Costabel wrote: > On lundi, fév 17, 2003, at 08:48 Europe/Paris, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > [] > > [0] Reading the postinst, this seems to be when a certain file is > > missing. What ever happened to this file? And there are certainly >

Re: [Fink-devel] tetex upgrade problems

On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 11:00 AM, Ben Hines wrote: Hmm? dpkg -r huh? When it says "reinstall", do that: "fink reinstall tetex-texmf" dpkg -r, fink install or dpkg -r, dpkg -i re-installs too. Actually, come to thing of it, just dpkg -i would, too. (I probably did it the dpkg way be

[Fink-devel] tetex upgrade problems

[Sorry, I didn't keep build logs...] I just did a fink update-all, and had a much less-than-pleasant experience with tetex. Well, actually, the lyx build is still running, so I'm still having it. Hopefully it all works now... This experience involved nice things like having to use dpkg --force

Re: [Fink-devel] Who should Provide X11 ?

[ Please forgive me if the tone is a little harsh; I'm stuck in front of a Windoze box for the moment... ] > Sure you can think of scenarios where someone might want the X > libraries installed and not the X server, but these are largely > artificial. Erm, what?! I have at least 20 servers, of

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [Fink-users] debianutils_1.23.tar.gz not foundfor selfupdate-cvs

FYI, you can grab the old sources from http://snapshot.debian.net/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [OT] Re: [Fink-devel] Sourceforge project of the month

On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 23:04, Carsten Klapp wrote: > > Hi Anthony, > > Funny you should mention this I just managed to get Debian's Potato > installed on my 6100/66 yesterday. Ugh. Why potato? Woody is out now, and I think you'll find it much better. New XFree86, for example. And, oh yeah, twic

Re: [Fink-devel] dpkg 'available' file - sections?

On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 10:43 PM, Ben Hines wrote: This probably also explains why i have no sections in dselect... Does anyone? I do, for some packages (both available and installed). On the Debian system, the section comes from the Packages and Packages.gz files which are maintai

Re: [Fink-devel] Sourceforge project of the month

On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 06:41 PM, Carsten Klapp wrote: I'm going to try to "port" fink to MkLinux so I don't have to use rpm anymore (of course it will have to always build from source and not use the binary packages). An easier (and more package-complete) alternative would be Debia

Re: [Fink-devel] FWD: tetex-base

On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 20:10, David R. Morrison wrote: > Anyone have suggestions about how to do this? Remove dialog from tetex-base, make tetex-base Depend: on dialog. (Assuming the dialog package works with tetex) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [Fink-devel] Localizing fink

On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 02:57, Ben Hines wrote: > Has any thought gone into localizing fink? I haven't heard any. Much thought (and flamewars), however, has gone into localizing apt and dpkg. You can find it all at the debian-devel mailing list. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/ Also, a lot

Re: [Fink-devel] cleaner Fink environment?

On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 06:16, David R. Morrison wrote: > So I'm wondering if we should get Fink to compile in a cleaner environment. > There should be some way to fork a shell with none of the environment variables > inherited by the new shell, I would think? Yes, see the env command. At least th

Re: [Fink-devel] dselect

On Mon, 2002-06-10 at 22:21, Ward W. Vuillemot wrote: > I have a very simple question. > > ... What is dselect written in? C++. Parts of dpkg are writtin in C. > If dselect is > written in Perl, I would _love_ to know how you got the interface...what > modules, anything to get me pointed in

[Fink-devel] unstable ethereal not buildable?

(cd .libs && cc -c -fno-builtin -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions "etherealS.c") /sw/src/ethereal-0.9.4-2/ethereal-0.9.4/.libs etherealS.c:1972: syntax error, found `@' etherealS.c:1972: illegal external declaration, missing `;' after `,' etherealS.c:1973: illegal external declaration, missing `;' after `

Re: [Fink-devel] Encouragement and Constructive Criticism

[ I know this is rather late, but... ] On Thursday, May 16, 2002, at 06:08 , Max Horn wrote: > It's like testing in debian, it will contains broken packages! > You gotta expect it. Not that we are not trying to avoid this > and to fix it, but our resources are limited. Testing (currently "woo

Re: [Fink-devel] /sw/include/apt-pkg docs?

On Saturday, June 1, 2002, at 11:32 , Kyle Moffett wrote: > Does anybody know where I can find docs or reference stuff or > file descriptions of the apt headers in /sw/include/apt-pkg? The only thing I can find is

Re: [Fink-devel] FYI: Porting fakeroot

On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 10:23, Justin Hallett wrote: > it doesn't appear to, do you know what headers normally provide this on > linux? sys/stat.h There is some magic in there to make stat64 be called stat if __USE_FILE_OFFSET64 is defined, too. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally si

[Fink-devel] FYI: Porting fakeroot

Well, I'm trying to port fakeroot over. I've figured out how to do the LD_PRELOAD equivelant, and I'm trying to get the actual software to compile. Then I'll worry about the dyld stuff. PS: Anyone know if Darwin has stat64 and friends? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed m

Re: [Fink-devel] fink vs apt-get

On Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 04:54 PM, Finlay Dobbie wrote: > And compare the number of Debian build servers, Debian > donations, and just resources in general. > SF provides a compile farm. Could those be used as build servers? ___ Fink-devel

Re: [Fink-devel] Fink - dpkg - annoying lack of sections in info

On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 06:11 PM, Max Horn wrote: > You mean, it is a reported bug in dpkg? Can you point me at > some bugreport/old mail/whatever on this? > #76100: install-info: ignores section/title from .info file. It is marked pending upload in the debian bts. BTW: Take a look a