Daniel Macks wrote:
Remind me why:
BuildConflicts: bzip2-dev
is a good idea?
Not really:
costabel% fink selfupdate
[...]
Reading Package Lists...
Building Dependency Tree...
Scanning package description files..
Information about 9314 packages read in 2 seconds.
The following
The only reason I built against the system bzip2
was that I didn't want to be responsible for adding
a new dependency that might be circular in the
core packages. If you are certain that zip will
never be required before bzip2 is built then
remove the...
BuildConflicts: bzip2-dev
and a
Well, I'm embarrassed to say it, but I can't get fink to recognize this
6.0 package. Is there something tricky about unzip-10.4 regarding how
it's labelled or something?
Jack Howarth wrote:
This should build fine as a subsitute for the current
unzip-10.4.info...
Package: unzip
Version:
Robert,
Try changing...
Revision: 1
...to...
Revision: 100
I thought that the variants had to either be of the
same version but a greater revision or have an epoch
if the version in the variant was smaller than the
main package file. So the current unzip-10.4.info
should have been epoched,
See if updating your package description cache via fink index -f will
make it show up.
Robert Wyatt wrote:
Well, I'm embarrassed to say it, but I can't get fink to recognize
this 6.0 package. Is there something tricky about unzip-10.4 regarding
how it's labelled or something?
snip
Alexander,
When one has two packages,
foobar.info
foobar-10.4.info
where foobar.info has...
Version: 1.0
Revision: 1.0
Distribution: 10.5, 10.6
and foobar-10.4.info has...
Version: 1.0
Revision: 1.0
Distribution: 10.4
I thought the foobar-10.4.info is ignored by fink
unless the Revision
Jack Howarth wrote:
Robert,
Try changing...
Revision: 1
...to...
Revision: 100
I thought that the variants had to either be of the
same version but a greater revision or have an epoch
if the version in the variant was smaller than the
main package file. So the current
I'll offer the counterexample of octoplot, which has the same revision
for 10.4 and 10.5, but uses a separate .info because different patches
are needed.
oops. Make that
octplot-x11 or octplot-aqua
--
Let
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 09:28:59AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
Robert,
Try changing...
Revision: 1
...to...
Revision: 100
I thought that the variants had to either be of the
same version but a greater revision or have an epoch
if the version in the variant was smaller than the
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:13:44AM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
I'll offer the counterexample of octoplot, which has the same revision
for 10.4 and 10.5, but uses a separate .info because different patches
are needed.
oops. Make that
octplot-x11 or octplot-aqua
So, is
This built and installed just fine Jack.
Jack Howarth wrote:
This should build fine as a subsitute for the current
unzip-10.4.info...
Package: unzip
Version: 6.0
Revision: 1
Distribution: 10.4
Maintainer: Fink Core Group fink-c...@lists.sourceforge.net
License: BSD
Essential: yes
Remind me why:
BuildConflicts: bzip2-dev
is a good idea?
dan
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 06:37:51PM -0500, Robert Wyatt wrote:
This built and installed just fine Jack.
Jack Howarth wrote:
This should build fine as a subsitute for the current
unzip-10.4.info...
Package: unzip
Daniel Macks wrote:
Remind me why:
BuildConflicts: bzip2-dev
is a good idea?
dan
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 06:37:51PM -0500, Robert Wyatt wrote:
This built and installed just fine Jack.
DanI have no idea what the motivations were for that./Dan
JackIt seems to work in the 10.4 stable
Daniel,
I don't have access to any 10.4 machines. What exactly is
the compilation failure with unzip 6.0? Is it the solved by
adding -fno-commons? I didn't see any messages from users
indicating that there were any problems on the mailing
list which is odd.
Jack
Looks like this issue is discussed here...
http://www.info-zip.org/board/board.pl?m-1223556237/
Can you test the previous packaging with...
CompileScript: make -f unix/Makefile macosx
changed to..
CompileScript: make -f unix/Makefile generic
or
CompileScript: make -f unix/Makefile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jack Howarth wrote:
Daniel,
I don't have access to any 10.4 machines. What exactly is
the compilation failure with unzip 6.0? Is it the solved by
adding -fno-commons? I didn't see any messages from users
indicating that there were any problems
This should build fine as a subsitute for the current
unzip-10.4.info...
Package: unzip
Version: 6.0
Revision: 1
Distribution: 10.4
Maintainer: Fink Core Group fink-c...@lists.sourceforge.net
License: BSD
Essential: yes
CustomMirror:
Primary: ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/src/
Source:
17 matches
Mail list logo