At 14:20 Uhr +0200 22.01.2003, Chris Leishman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Max Horn wrote:But the .so's (or .dylibs actually) should be versioned shouldn't they? As long as it doesn't change the .po format or the API then it should be ok?At 13:21 Uhr +0200 22.01.2003, Chris Leishman wrote:Hi Max,We have discussed this in #fink and in fink-devel in the past. It won't happen anytime soon, because it is binary incompatible to older versions, and updating it will be a mess.
I was wondering if you had an opportunity to look at updating the gettext package to the 0.11.5 upstream version?
Sure it would mean restructuring the gettext fink package slightly, because at the moment there is only a single gettext package. You would need separate packages for the shared libs and for the rest. Then you could have multiple shared lib packages installed for the 0.10.40 version and the 0.11.5 version. The user could then choose which of the versions to choose for the rest of the files (and naturally they'd conflict with each other).
Actually - after just writing that I saw your msg in fink-devel:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=2226789
I'll try and do some checking into API compatibility if you like - though I'm fairly sure it will be ok.
First off, the gettext folks themselves admit they broke some API compatibility, IIRC. Secondly, the problems largely stem from the fact that this is an Essential package. Even if you split it, it will not solve the problem. That easily. More on this in the archives I guess.
To sum it up roughly: gettext is essential, and many many things need it, but w/o declaring it so.
If gettext 0.11 is 100% source & binary compatible to 0.10, we have no problem, and can stop this dicussion now, and simply update the gettext package to the new version. However, IIRC it is *not* so.
If its *not* source compatible, then its going to be ugly, see the URL Chris pasted.
If it is source but not binary compatible, the situation is something like this:
Let's say we add gettext11 (if its binary incompatible it gotta have a different name). Let's also assume we splitoffize it. Then of course both -shlibs can be installed at the same time. fine, but that's not the issue (but note that we would have to declare both shlibs essential, which is not so nice because then the user has to always build and install two version of gettext when he bootstrap Fink - very ugly).
No the complications come from the -dev parts. Quite obviously you can't install both of them at once. Howver, one of the always *must* be installed. I.e. must be Essential. And here comes the problem, only one of them can be essential, since they conflict.
A simple "Provides: gettext" in gettext11 won't be sufficient to overcome the problem. Maybe we could get away by "cheating" and declarig gettext to be a dependency of one of the other essential packages, but I am not even sure that would work (during bootstrap time that is), I haven't touched that code for too long, so somebody might want to try it.
That pretty much sums up the situation (once again <g>)
Max
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies!
Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships.
Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more.
www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
