I know you said you think it did, but really i don't think it does work without the revision in the BuildDepends:
Found Python version 2.3
Warning: Missing libxml2-python
Enabling debugger
checking for libxml libraries >= 2.5.2... configure: error: Version 2.4.30 found. You need at least libxml2 2.5.2 for this version of libxslt
### execution of ./configure failed, exit code 1
Failed: compiling libxslt-1.0.27-1 failed
301 % fink list libxml2
Information about 2348 packages read in 2 seconds.
(i) libxml2 2.5.4-1 XML parsing library, version 2 i libxml2-bin 2.5.4-1 XML parsing library, version 2 i libxml2-shlibs 2.5.4-1 XML parsing library, version 2
What Ben is talking about is that a BuildDepends like "foo (> 1.0)" doesn't work, you have to do "foo (> 1.0-1)" (i.e. you have to specify a revision).
I am not 100% this is really an issue of the version compare code in Fink, but then I have been wrong before, so somebody should test it =)
dpkg does support it to a degree (albeit not in the most intuitive way):
sh-2.05a$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.5.2 "<" 2.5.2-1 && echo true || echo false true sh-2.05a$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.5.2 "<" 2.5.1-1 && echo true || echo false false sh-2.05a$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.5.2 ">" 2.5.1-1 && echo true || echo false true sh-2.05a$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.5.2 ">" 2.5.2-1 && echo true || echo false false sh-2.05a$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.5.2 ">=" 2.5.2-1 && echo true || echo false false
With "not the most intuitive way", I mean that I wouldn't expect "libxml2 (>= 2.5.2)" to exclude all 2.5.2 revisions, i.e. it is basically the same as "libxml2 (> 2.5.2)". However emulating this behaviour should be easy (and I wonder why the
Max
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
