Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-15 Thread Masanori Sekino
One more things, New packages does not replaces old one automatically. Please remove old packages before installation. On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:23:05 +0900 Masanori Sekino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Renamed packages are in CVS now. They are named glib2, atk1, pango1, > gtk+2, linc1 and libidl2.

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-15 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:20:31 +0900 Masanori Sekino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll rewrite GTK2/GNOME2 packages and put them into CVS again. Renamed packages are in CVS now. They are named glib2, atk1, pango1, gtk+2, linc1 and libidl2. New packages orbit2 and libart2 are also available. Than

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:45:14 +0100 Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > glib doesn't use a "." but a "-", however this is completly valid, > various other packages do it this way (maybe the Shlibs policy file > should be changed to mention that). [...] > No, they mean the same, at least the wa

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 7:30 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:21:17 +0100 >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > I mean, what is bad about the package name glib2? Assuming there will >> >> be a version 2.2, it will be glib2-2.2 >> >> >> >> If say 2.4 was binary incompa

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Finlay Dobbie
>Oh very few, I admit. Of the ones that I can think of a version number at >the moment where that number is greater than 2, I can only come up with >Perl, Vim, Mozilla, and Emacs. And of those, three of them are at or near >version six (though Mozilla started at 6, and Perl's not there yet). Moz

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:21:17 +0100 Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I mean, what is bad about the package name glib2? Assuming there will > >> be a version 2.2, it will be glib2-2.2 > >> > >> If say 2.4 was binary incompatible, we could make a glib24-2.4 > >> package, however, I stro

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Chris Devers
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote: > At 13:25 Uhr -0600 13.03.2002, Chris Devers wrote: > > > >In a world where Emacs can be on version 21 > > How old is emacs? How big is the percentage of all open source > projects with such a high version number? Heck, how big is the > percentage with a v

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 13:25 Uhr -0600 13.03.2002, Chris Devers wrote: >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote: > >> At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 >> >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for gli

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Chris Devers
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Max Horn wrote: > At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: > >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 > >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ? > > > >Yes. > > He, if we ever get to that version, I

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 3:58 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 >> >and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. >[...] >> >> Do you want to say, you do this to

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:13:44 +0100 Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 > >and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. [...] > > Do you want to say, you do this to be prepared for glib 20.0 ? Yes. > I mean, what is bad about

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
still waiting for Max to comment. All i'm saying is that we all need to use the same convension. Or should I think. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >-conf is a good naming, if it contains only config files. but shlibs >packages may share these files: > >- config files >- locale files >- modules >- pr

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
-conf is a good naming, if it contains only config files. but shlibs packages may share these files: - config files - locale files - modules - program or scripts, needed by shlibs package, especially by *Script field in .info file. So -common or -base is appropreate, I think. On Wed, 13 Mar

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread David R. Morrison
We've had a package called fvwm-common since last July or August, which both fvwm and fvwm2 depend on. It works in exactly the same way -- all of the overlapping files go there. I borrowed the naming from debian at the time. I think we can stick with that naming convention. -- Dave __

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 3:02 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages. > >fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time, but if >they contains a same file, /etc/foo.conf for example, they can't >coexists. In this case, foo-common package contain

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 12:25 Uhr -0500 13.03.2002, Dan Winship wrote: >>That's not completly true. Some files are installed by both, like >>glib-config, etc.. > >No, glib 2.0 uses pkgconfig. > >If there are any files that both try to install, it's a bug and >should be reported to bugzilla.gnome.org. You're supposed

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 2:52 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >Libraries in glib2 are named: > >libglib-2.0.la >libglib-2.0.dylib >libglib-2.0.0.dylib >libglib-2.0.0.0.0.dylib > >So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 >and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. I don't get tha

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
OH we've been using -conf. We need a standard I think. I like -common and -base but those are debians anyhow that is just babling we need a standard. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages. > >fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
-common package is a common files for -shlibs packages. fooN-shlibs packages should be installable at the same time, but if they contains a same file, /etc/foo.conf for example, they can't coexists. In this case, foo-common package contains /etc/foo.conf and all the fooN-shlibs depends on it. Thi

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
Libraries in glib2 are named: libglib-2.0.la libglib-2.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.dylib libglib-2.0.0.0.0.dylib So, package name `fooN' will become glib2-0, where foo=glib2, N=0 and hyphen is for distinguish N=0 with N=20. On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:23:41 +0100 Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nic

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
also what is in the -common and are we gonna use -common and -base, this a general question for splitoff. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Nice. Now one more question: why are the packages named like >"glib2-0" and not just "glib2" ? ¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·., Justin F. Hallett - Sy

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Dan Winship
> That's not completly true. Some files are installed by both, like > glib-config, etc.. No, glib 2.0 uses pkgconfig. If there are any files that both try to install, it's a bug and should be reported to bugzilla.gnome.org. You're supposed to be able to have both glib 1.2.10 and glib 2.0 inst

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 2:16 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:50:45 +0100 >Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS. >> >> Hm, don't see them there. > >Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can. > > >> Very nice! Bu

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
okay just testing it right now. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can. ¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·., Justin F. Hallett - Systems Analyst Phone: (780)-408-3094 Fax: (780)-454-3200 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:50:45 +0100 Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS. > > Hm, don't see them there. Oh sorry, I forgot to commit them. Now you can. > Very nice! But I wonder, do they coexist with the old packages? They are coexi

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Justin Hallett
me either and i just made a symlink from my cvsroot splitoff dir into fink so i can install all the splitoff pkgs and there not there. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS. > >Hm, don't see them there. ¸.·´^`·.,][JFH][`·.,¸¸.·´][JFH][¸.·´^`·.,

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 1:41 Uhr +0900 14.03.2002, Masanori Sekino wrote: >Hi Max, > >I currently working on porting GNOME2. > >What I have already ported and packaged are: > > glib2, pango1, atk1, gtk+2, linc1, libidl2 Very nice! But I wonder, do they coexist with the old packages? >I put their packages into sha

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Masanori Sekino
Hi Max, I currently working on porting GNOME2. What I have already ported and packaged are: glib2, pango1, atk1, gtk+2, linc1, libidl2 I put their packages into shared-libraries/splitoff in CVS. I have ported orbit2, libart2 and libglade2 also, but not packaged yet. On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
At 8:49 Uhr -0500 13.03.2002, Dan Winship wrote: >On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Max Horn wrote: > >>Would be nice if we had a package for glib 2.0 - ideally, it would >>be able to coexist to the current glib, though I am not sure how >>hard it would be exactly. > >All of the GNOME l

Re: [Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Dan Winship
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Max Horn wrote: > Would be nice if we had a package for glib 2.0 - ideally, it would be > able to coexist to the current glib, though I am not sure how hard it > would be exactly. All of the GNOME libraries are supposed to be set up so that you can

[Fink-devel] glib 2.0

2002-03-13 Thread Max Horn
Would be nice if we had a package for glib 2.0 - ideally, it would be able to coexist to the current glib, though I am not sure how hard it would be exactly. glib-shlibs anybody? Max -- --- Max Horn Software Developer email: