Re: x11 virtual package check (Was Re: [Fink-devel] freeciv/imlib/giflib/xfree)

2004-02-15 Thread Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
Martin Costabel wrote: Alexander Hansen wrote: On Feb 13, 2004, at 4:46 PM, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: system-xfree86 is now a virtual package, which is supposed to show up automatically if X11 is installed correctly. It appears that the installer sometimes leaves out files. There's a

Re: x11 virtual package check (Was Re: [Fink-devel] freeciv/imlib/giflib/xfree)

2004-02-15 Thread Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
Martin Costabel wrote: Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: [] As to the FAQ - I didn't expected this kind of "auto-detection", I expected that I need somehow add manually Apple's x11. So I just didn't guessed that this is faq. It is a good principle to assume that any question you want to ask has be

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo m2crypto-python22.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python22.patch,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.patch,NONE,1.1

2004-02-15 Thread James Gibbs
On Feb 14, 2004, at 7:58 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote: On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Ben Hines wrote: Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard. Where is this documented? I cannot find that not in the 'creating fi

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/crypto/finkinfo m2crypto-python22.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python22.patch,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.info,NONE,1.1 m2crypto-python23.patch,NONE,1.1

2004-02-15 Thread Peter O'Gorman
James Gibbs wrote: On Feb 14, 2004, at 7:58 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote: On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Ben Hines wrote: Packages submitted to the tracker should be rejected if the .patch files are not in unified diff format. That's our standard. Where is this documented? I cannot find that not

Re: [Fink-devel] Stability - bluefish 0.10-11

2004-02-15 Thread Michèle Garoche
Many Thanks to Jeffrey. I've tested bluefish 0.12-12 on stable, works like a charm. So now, bluefish 0.12-12 can be moved on to stable. Anyone willing to do it? Michèle PGP.sig Description: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ceci_est_une_signature_=E9lectronique_PGP?=

Re: [Fink-devel] Stability - bluefish 0.10-11

2004-02-15 Thread David R. Morrison
bluefish 0.12-12 has now been moved to stable. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=13

Re: [Fink-devel] Please Help Improve the Stability of Fink

2004-02-15 Thread David R. Morrison
To help get things started, I've added "verified by" entries for all of the commits to 10.3/stable from the past month where the CVS log suggested this was appropriate. However, there is still a lot of work to do along these lines, and I encourage everyone to roll up their sleeves and help out. I

Re: [Fink-devel] Stability - bluefish 0.10-11

2004-02-15 Thread Kevin Horton
At 12:15 -0500 15/2/04, David R. Morrison wrote: bluefish 0.12-12 has now been moved to stable. -- Dave Actually, there seems to be a missing BuildDepends on pkgconfig. Probably not a big deal for the binary distribution, but maybe it should be fixed. Kevin Horton --

[Fink-devel] ngspice compile problem

2004-02-15 Thread Khairulmizam Samsudin
Hi, I'm having problem building ngspice (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ngspice/) on 10.2.8 & fink. I am sure that this problem is related to osx & fink because i dont have any problem building it on x86 debian (testing). The compile spit an error below during the final compilation This is t

Re: x11 virtual package check (Was Re: [Fink-devel] freeciv/imlib/giflib/xfree)

2004-02-15 Thread Alexander Hansen
On Feb 15, 2004, at 12:42 PM, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: Alexander Hansen wrote: Why do I need to have *-dev/SDK if I'm going to use binary only packages? apt-get automatically installs a lot of *-dev packages, FAQ says for Apple's X11 to recognized correctly I need to have X11SDK installe

[Fink-devel] Re: web/xml/packaging packaging.xml,1.64,1.65

2004-02-15 Thread Remi Mommsen
Hi Peter, On Feb 15, 2004, at 3:26 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: +It must also be noted that extremely large patches should not be put in cvs, +they should be put on a web/ftp server and specified using the +SourceN: field. If you don't have a website, we can put the patch +on the fink website some

Re: [Fink-devel] Stability - bluefish 0.10-11

2004-02-15 Thread Michèle Garoche
Le 15 févr. 2004, à 18:35, Kevin Horton a écrit : At 12:15 -0500 15/2/04, David R. Morrison wrote: bluefish 0.12-12 has now been moved to stable. -- Dave Actually, there seems to be a missing BuildDepends on pkgconfig. Probably not a big deal for the binary distribution, but maybe it should

[Fink-devel] Unwritten rules

2004-02-15 Thread Koen van der Drift
On Feb 15, 2004, at 10:02 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: Here in the packaging manual : http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/packaging/reference.php#patches Haha, only just. I added it a couple of hours ago, prior to that it was an unwritten rule that nobody had any chance to find out about unless they ha

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread Ben Hines
On Feb 14, 2004, at 11:49 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote: I don't know how you count, but I see 149 patch files in 10.2-gcc3.3 and 10.3 (both stable and unstable) which are above 30k. Sounds pretty low to me... under 1 percent since you're counting most packages 2 or even 3 times. (so you're counting w

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: web/xml/packaging packaging.xml,1.64,1.65

2004-02-15 Thread Ben Hines
Uh, That is only two. apache and webmin. You counted webmin twice and 6 versions of apache2. A 'few' generally means more than two. There is no such guideline for info files since it generally is not needed. patch files are much easier to balloon up in size. In any case you should not put uneed

Fwd: [Fink-devel] Validating fink packages

2004-02-15 Thread Ben Hines
Here's everything i look at, and some stuff i forgot. See quoted message below. - Check license, make sure it is correct - Emacs modules: must comply with emacs policy (/sw/share/doc/emacsen-common/debian-emacs-policy) - Use a unified diff for patches - patch files should be reasonable size, and a

Re: Fwd: [Fink-devel] Validating fink packages

2004-02-15 Thread Kevin Horton
At 12:28 -0800 15/2/04, Ben Hines wrote: Here's everything i look at, and some stuff i forgot. See quoted message below. - Check license, make sure it is correct - Emacs modules: must comply with emacs policy (/sw/share/doc/emacsen-common/debian-emacs-policy) - Use a unified diff for patches - p

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread Remi Mommsen
Hi Ben, On Feb 15, 2004, at 11:55 AM, Ben Hines wrote: On Feb 14, 2004, at 11:49 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote: I don't know how you count, but I see 149 patch files in 10.2-gcc3.3 and 10.3 (both stable and unstable) which are above 30k. Sounds pretty low to me... under 1 percent since you're countin

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread Ben Hines
On Feb 15, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Remi Mommsen wrote: How many *packages* is it? (stick to ONE tree) Why? If these packages need to be changed, you have to fix/test 149 of them. Some might be easy as they are identical in all 4 trees, others have maybe 4 different versions. IMO it doesn't matter what

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread David R. Morrison
Hi Ben. There's a tradeoff here between, on the one hand, encouraging packagers to keep patches small and thereby keeping the fink info/patch database at a reasonable size, and on the other hand, making sure that we don't add unnecessary barriers to packaging things up. If we have to find a way t

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread Ben Hines
On Feb 15, 2004, at 1:56 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: So I tend to agree with Remi that, given the patches which already exist, something like 300K is probably a more reasonable cutoff than 30K. Or maybe something in between, like 100K? Why? You're being 'arbitrary' again. :) I based my number o

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread David R. Morrison
> And whats with the 'Hi Ben,' condescension, Dave? It was intended as friendly. -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Cl

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread Kevin Horton
At 14:22 -0800 15/2/04, Ben Hines wrote: On Feb 15, 2004, at 1:56 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: So I tend to agree with Remi that, given the patches which already exist, something like 300K is probably a more reasonable cutoff than 30K. Or maybe something in between, like 100K? Why? You're being 'a

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread Martin Costabel
Ben Hines wrote: [] It's quite rare that a package has to go over 30. 100K is extremely rare (only one or two, many of which are packaging errors). Some of the biggest ones are a bit weird, too. The biggest, xv, seems actually to be something that exists already on a server ftp://ftp.lair.net/

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread David R. Morrison
The emacs21 patch will go away soon, since the "modern" emacs21 packages which I made don't need it. (They are still in unstable, awaiting feedback.) -- Dave --- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps

Re: [Fink-devel] submitting large patches

2004-02-15 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Kevin Horton wrote: > > As a user with three fink installations (one for general use, one to > test packages and one on an original iBook with only a 3 GB hard drive), > I'm certainly interested in keeping the size of the distribution as > small as practical. But any change in policy should probab

Re: [Fink-devel] Unwritten rules

2004-02-15 Thread James Gibbs
On Feb 15, 2004, at 1:56 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote: Are there any other 'unwritten rules' that occasional packagers such as myself who seldomly spent time on IRC should know about? Here's the list of unwrittens Ben Hines sent to me after I screwed up once. They're probably all written down now

Re: Fwd: [Fink-devel] Validating fink packages

2004-02-15 Thread Daniel Macks
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:28:20PM -0800, Ben Hines wrote: > > - Use a unified diff for patches Cool...saves me from having to fix the validator code for /sw in .patch:) > - patch files should be reasonable size, and all patches should be > necessary (no accidental patching of backup files, I

Re: [Fink-devel] java mess

2004-02-15 Thread Koen van der Drift
On Feb 3, 2004, at 10:43 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: On panther maybe, on 10.2 we need to be trickier because it's possible for the user to install a package built on a system that had 1.4 as the default, and then run it on a system that still has 1.3. As long as you BuildDepend on system-java14-d

Re: [Fink-devel] date-manip-pm error

2004-02-15 Thread Daniel Macks
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 01:40:24AM +0100, Martin Costabel wrote: > David R. Morrison wrote: > [] > >The error report came to this list because fink-devel is listed as the > >maintainer. > > One (minor) question in this context is how the package database > determines the maintainer when different

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: dists/10.3/unstable/main/finkinfo/x11 xv.info,1.3,1.4 xv.patch,1.1,1.2

2004-02-15 Thread Daniel Macks
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 03:08:13PM -0800, Ben Hines wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2004, at 9:09 PM, Daniel Macks wrote: > > >The DescDetail is one giant line, so it looks like crap on plain-text > >displays. A couple of weeks ago I added a validator warning for this a > >couple of weeks ago, but I don't

Re: [Fink-devel] Validating fink packages

2004-02-15 Thread Remi Mommsen
Hi, On Feb 15, 2004, at 6:09 PM, Daniel Macks wrote: - Check dependencies, run something like this: 'dpkg -L wml | xargs otool -L' will list all libraries linked to by everything in that package. make sure it depends on each (didnt someone make a perl script to do that?.. i think so), and make s

Re: [Fink-devel] Conditional Depends Syntax

2004-02-15 Thread Daniel Macks
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 05:05:04PM -0500, David R. Morrison wrote: > I'm jumping into this thread a bit late, since I was out of town for a few > days. Glad to see your imput on this. > I hope that everyone is bearing in mind a crucial fact of life: whatever > we do in terms of dependencies has

Re: [Fink-devel] Folding long lines in scripts

2004-02-15 Thread Daniel Macks
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 06:14:10PM +1100, Rohan Lloyd wrote: [a *huge* snip...we're now talking about a patch for Services.pm] Okay, looking good. Question: > - If "#!" strip leading whitespace on first line only > - Otherwise, unfold lines and strip leading whitespace on all lines. This la