On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 02:01 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> No, since the debian tools require root access. Debian solves this with
> the fakeroot tool, but you can't just recompile that for OS X, it has
> to be rewritten. Finlay and me were looking into it a bit, not sure if
> Finlay is st
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 01:42 PM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 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
At 8:42 Uhr -0500 26.01.2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>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?
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
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Finlay Dobbie wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 09:33 pm, Max Horn wrote:
>> Oh and to mention one more difference: count the number of active
>> debian developers. The count the total number of active fink
>> developers. Compare the numbers. Think.
>
> And compare
On Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 09:33 pm, Max Horn wrote:
> At 16:11 Uhr -0500 16.01.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>> (Sorry for the incomplete message, I hit the wrong button!)
>>
>> That being said, we have not yet gotten a smooth system working for
>> creating binaries on a regular basis
At 16:11 Uhr -0500 16.01.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>(Sorry for the incomplete message, I hit the wrong button!)
>
>That being said, we have not yet gotten a smooth system working for
>creating binaries on a regular basis, and there was an unfortunate
>technical problem about a week ago which
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Max Horn wrote:
> With fink, for every package there is an .info file (and possibly a
> .patch file, too). Fink then uses the data from this .info file to
> retrieve the source tarball(s), expand them, patch them, compile
> everything, and then package it into a .deb (this is
(Sorry for the incomplete message, I hit the wrong button!)
That being said, we have not yet gotten a smooth system working for
creating binaries on a regular basis, and there was an unfortunate
technical problem about a week ago which wiped out some old binaries.
So please be patient with us --
Let me mention one difference between debian and fink.
Right now, the debian distribution is divided into free, contrib, non-free
sections. We haven't made this division formally in fink, but it is only
the *free* portion that we will provide binaries for. The "unstable"
part of fink is just th
> Well, it's not weak, though perhaps a bit strained. qmail by Dan
> Berstein is under a source-only distribution. He allows for binary
> distributions in a very narrow set of circumstances. I believe most
> of his other software is as well. I can certainly see it happening,
> even if it is uncomm
At 15:37 Uhr -0500 16.01.2002, Matt Wallace wrote:
> > We don't want to be sued. If a packages doesn't have a license field,
>> it won't get into the bindist. If it is under a restrictive license
>> which forbids binary redistribution, it won't get into the bindist.
>> If a package possibly in
On Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 03:37 , Matt Wallace wrote:
> Also I think the, "we don't want to get sued" line is weak. If
> somebody
> has a problem with their software being distributed they mail the
> list and
> it's taken off the distribution. But more to the point, if someone is
> d
> We don't want to be sued. If a packages doesn't have a license field,
> it won't get into the bindist. If it is under a restrictive license
> which forbids binary redistribution, it won't get into the bindist.
> If a package possibly infringes patents (like libgif does with the
> unisys patent),
At 8:01 Uhr -0800 16.01.2002, Evan Martin wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:10:55AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
>> I think you really should have first informed yourself a bit better
>> about fink before posting this! I think it's a bit embarassing to see
>> people post to fink-devel who haven't ev
dpkg -l /*/* <--- to see if it is apt-getable
fink list <--- to see if it exists in fink at all.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>This last step seems odd-- there are two separate ways to install
>packages? How can I tell from the fink page whether a package is
>installable via apt-get or fink?
ΒΈ.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:10:55AM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
> I think you really should have first informed yourself a bit better
> about fink before posting this! I think it's a bit embarassing to see
> people post to fink-devel who haven't even bothered to read the docs.
>
> We do offere binari
I think you really should have first informed yourself a bit better
about fink before posting this! I think it's a bit embarassing to see
people post to fink-devel who haven't even bothered to read the docs.
We do offere binaries (.deb files), and you indeed can use apt-get and dselect.
Fink i
I'm a longtime (maybe four years, now!) Debian user who bought a Mac
laptop because of Fink, so excuse me if I go about this the wrong way,
but:
Why do we even have this "fink" program?
What about the Debian system didn't work?
If you look at the fink-beginners mailing list, they're literally
19 matches
Mail list logo
