Sounds good to me :-)
JP
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 10:50 AM, TheSin wrote:
maybe set a fink.conf field for this, say MD5NotFatal: true ??
On 30-Aug-03, at 11:15 AM, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
I'm not so ok with this, what if I have a number of packages which
are very-not-standard for v
maybe set a fink.conf field for this, say MD5NotFatal: true ??
On 30-Aug-03, at 11:15 AM, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
I'm not so ok with this, what if I have a number of packages which are
very-not-standard for various reasons living in my local tree, I do
not want to have to do md5s for my own
I'm not so ok with this, what if I have a number of packages which are
very-not-standard for various reasons living in my local tree, I do not
want to have to do md5s for my own packages that I know will never
really be part of fink because of the way I've constructed them. Does
that make any s
I'm okay with this.
On 29-Aug-03, at 9:13 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
In fact, I think I would take it one step further: if there is no
MD5-sum,
fink can print out the MD5-sum it calculates (for the benefit of
developers)
but should then quit and refuse to compile the package.
-- Dave
---
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 04:57 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 11:41 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Hi Peter. This one should be structured as a warning to developers,
not
to users (similar to the "duplicate fields" warning). In fact, there
is
already a warning i
On Aug 29,2003 11:09:56 -0400, David R. Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
>
>On Aug 29,2003 23:57:27 +0900, Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>>
>>On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 11:41 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter. This one should be structured as a warning to devel
On Aug 29,2003 23:57:27 +0900, Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
>On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 11:41 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter. This one should be structured as a warning to developers,
>> not
>> to users (similar to the "duplicate fields" warning). In fact, ther
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 11:41 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Hi Peter. This one should be structured as a warning to developers,
not
to users (similar to the "duplicate fields" warning). In fact, there
is
already a warning if you do "fink fetch foo" and foo has no MD5-sum.
Okay, thought
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 15:44 Europe/Brussels, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Hi,
I'm considering changing fink so that when the user does "fink install
foo" and foo has no Source-MD5 field, or the field is empty, it will
print the warning asking the user what to do (similar to the warning
currently
Hi Peter. This one should be structured as a warning to developers, not
to users (similar to the "duplicate fields" warning). In fact, there is
already a warning if you do "fink fetch foo" and foo has no MD5-sum.
Just like with duplicate fields, and other critical errors, we shouldn't
be allowin
I think that it should maybe be done at a higher verbose level as it
will pause for interaction if it asks what to do.
On 29-Aug-03, at 7:55 AM, David wrote:
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:44 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Hi,
I'm considering changing fink so that when the user does "fink
instal
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:44 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Hi,
I'm considering changing fink so that when the user does "fink install
foo" and foo has no Source-MD5 field, or the field is empty, it will
print the warning asking the user what to do (similar to the warning
currently printed w
Hi,
I'm considering changing fink so that when the user does "fink install
foo" and foo has no Source-MD5 field, or the field is empty, it will
print the warning asking the user what to do (similar to the warning
currently printed when the md5 in the info file and the tarball differ).
Are we re
13 matches
Mail list logo
