Ben Hines has asked me in private email why we need the "%n (>= %v-%r)"
part of the new Shlibs field.
Although I can't give an example of this at the moment, I can explain
some future scenarios where this will be used.
Suppose that your package builds two shared libraries, libfoo.1.dylib
and libb
Thanks for catching the typo, Ben.
The correct example is:
Shlibs: <<
%p/lib/libapt-inst.1.0.dylib %n (>= %v-%r)
%p/lib/libapt-pkg.3.2.dylib %n (>= %v-%r)
<<
-- Dave
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to g
On Saturday, October 12, 2002, at 12:30 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Shlibs: <<
%p/lib/libapt-inst.1.0.dylib %n (>= %v-%r)
%p/lib/libapt-pkg.3.2 %n (>= %v-%r)
<<
Why not %p/lib/libapt-pkg.3.2.dylib? typo? No typos allowed in
essential packages and shared libs documentation! :)
Dear Fink Devlopers,
I have implemented the next phase of the shlibs project, which I'll discuss
in this message.
In this phase, in addition to making sure that all shared libraries are
kept in separate fink packages which can remain installed long after
other things have been upgraded, you will
