-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 19, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David R. Morrison wrote:
| The policy question is: should the new package download the libjpeg
source
| and copy the needed headers into its build tree, or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David R. Morrison wrote:
| The policy question is: should the new package download the libjpeg source
| and copy the needed headers into its build tree, or should the libjpeg
| package install the internal headers "by hand", for the benefit of this
| ot
Folks,
Here's a policy question.
The libjpeg package, like many packages, uses a number of header files during
compilation which are considered "internal," and only installs the "external"
ones at install time. The external header files end up in the libjpeg
package, but the internal ones don't.
It was a new package submission where I told the author that they needed
to change the /sw's to %p in some manner, and suggested looking at
dpkg.info as an example of "patching the patch", but the author then said
there was no need to do that and that they added a DescPackaging line to
indicate tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Henninger wrote:
| Is this not against fink policy?
| DescPackaging: <<
| Don't mind the following result:
| $ fink -v validate xinitrc.info
| Warning: Patch file appears to contain a hardcoded /sw. (xinitrc.patch)
|
| You must *manually* ensure
Is this not against fink policy?
DescPackaging: <<
Don't mind the following result:
$ fink -v validate xinitrc.info
Warning: Patch file appears to contain a hardcoded /sw. (xinitrc.patch)
You must *manually* ensure the prefix cleanness.
<<
There are always sed-based methods to automate setting up
At 6:56 Uhr -0500 09.03.2002, David R. Morrison wrote:
>I have a policy question to bring up, regarding our requirements for
>documentation. Is the following OK?
>
>Package: foobar
>Source: gnu
>Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r)
>License: GPL
>InstallScript: <<
> make install
I have a policy question to bring up, regarding our requirements for
documentation. Is the following OK?
Package: foobar
Source: gnu
Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r)
License: GPL
InstallScript: <<
make install prefix=%i
mkdir -p %i/share/doc/%n
ln -s %p/share/doc/%N-shl
