Am 06.01.2004 um 17:01 schrieb TheSin:
break it how, the 0-2 switch ? Cause I just explained that, i didn't
want to change it, Clef and drm and other where upset that some
depends had to be present in builddepends as well. But in my mind
that is correct, they disagreed with me so I changed it
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the clarification !
Best,
Jean-Francois
On Jan 6, 2004, at 4:58 PM, TheSin wrote:
sure everyone was complaining so i just changed it.
I don't understand what you're referring to here: who was complaining
about what ?
Some other issue ?
As for ffmpeg they are builddeps e
just did.
and no I did not, I believe that is how ffmpeg should be, sepcially
since I can build rebuild and install it no problem.
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 6-Jan-04, at 8:53 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Justin _ can you explain what yo
sure everyone was complaining so i just changed it. As for ffmpeg
they are builddeps even if they are built at the same time, it won't
hurt it in anyway and someday if they become separate pkgs as I have
been thinking about doing, I won't have to change anything.
So even though i agree that p
Am 06.01.2004 um 16:04 schrieb jfm:
On Jan 6, 2004, at 12:05 PM, Max Horn wrote:
After all, relatives of a package can't (and mustn't) be build
dependencies of the package, since they are built at *exactly the
same time*. So it wouldn't even make sense to have such a dependency
(I can imagine
Am 06.01.2004 um 15:38 schrieb TheSin:
I agree this is a problem I had fink build only checking build depends
but then ppl complained since they needed build depends and depends in
both fields.
Err... hu??? That makes no sense at all. The resolve_depends mode 2
(value of $include_build in resol
On Jan 6, 2004, at 12:05 PM, Max Horn wrote:
After all, relatives of a package can't (and mustn't) be build
dependencies of the package, since they are built at *exactly the same
time*. So it wouldn't even make sense to have such a dependency (I can
imagine some situations where people would *w
Am 06.01.2004 um 11:31 schrieb Max Horn:
[...]
Anyway, I noticed another problem now. I just wanted to test-build
swi-prolog, which depends on its splitoff "swi-prolog-lite". So I did
fink build swi-prolog
Which lead to fink telling me that it needs swi-prolog-lite for that!
Not good, not g
OK, a proper fix for the issue (at least it fixes Ben's example) is in
CVS. The bug was indeed mine (or maybe it once wasn't a bug and I then
changed the definition of _relatives w/o proper checking for
consequences, thus turning it into a bug - I dunno anymore :-) My
responsibility anyway, for
Am 02.01.2004 um 06:26 schrieb Ben Hines:
Still occurs with cvs. Note that the parent does not depend on the
-shlibs in my test package.
I think this might be a very old bug from max. (fix at bottom)
[...]
This fixes it I think... the loop removing relatives from the rebuild
list was only be
Still occurs with cvs. Note that the parent does not depend on the
-shlibs in my test package.
I think this might be a very old bug from max. (fix at bottom)
Here is the pkg, fink remove them all then do 'fink rebuild baz
baz-blammo"
Package: baz
Version: 2.1
Revision: 11
#Depends: %N-blammo,
does 0.17.4 have my new dep stuff in it perchance? cause not installed
rebuild was the hardest thing to deal with. Can it be tested with
current CVS ben, with your test case please?
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 1-Jan-04, at 9:26
Ok, yeah, I can reproduce it with my test package after i remove.. it
appears it only happens if a package is NOT installed and is rebuilt.
Source line does not matter.
-Ben
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:12 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
No, I don't use that field. I'll try to find an existing package
No, I don't use that field. I'll try to find an existing package in
fink that does the same, so others can test it.
I have reproduced it with libpng3, but I had to remove the package
first. And the order didn't even matter, both packages were build
twice both times. It must be machine related
On Jan 1, 2004, at 9:15 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
I used a test package that was Type: nosource and "fink rebuild baz
baz-shlibs" 'compiles' baz twice no matter the order. Is your foo test
package Type nosource?
No, I don't use that field. I'll try to find an existing package in
fink that does the
On Jan 1, 2004, at 9:06 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Are you using fink-0.17.4, or fink from CVS?
fink 0.17-4
- Koen.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up
Are you using fink-0.17.4, or fink from CVS?
-- Dave
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash s
This is interesting.
I used a test package that was Type: nosource and "fink rebuild baz
baz-shlibs" 'compiles' baz twice no matter the order. Is your foo test
package Type nosource?
When i added a source tarball, it only builds once.
-Ben
On Jan 1, 2004, at 5:48 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
Hi,
While working on a package I notice that if I type:
fink rebuild foo foo-shlibs
then fink build both packages in one run. But if I type:
fink rebuild foo-shlibs foo
then fink uses two rounds of unpacking/compiling/building, although
both deb files are created in the first run.
I tried it
19 matches
Mail list logo
