Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-04 Thread Martin Costabel
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-04 Thread Jack Howarth
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Robert Wyatt
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:

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Jack Howarth
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,

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Alexander Hansen
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Jack Howarth
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Alexander Hansen
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Alexander Hansen
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Daniel Macks
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Jack Howarth
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Robert Wyatt
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Daniel Macks
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-03 Thread Robert Wyatt
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

[Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-01 Thread Jack Howarth
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-01 Thread Jack Howarth
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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-01 Thread Alexander Hansen
-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

Re: [Fink-devel] unzip-6.0-1 and 10.4

2009-09-01 Thread Jack Howarth
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: