David R. Morrison | 1 Jul 04:45 2010

crypto tree moved

Dear fink developers,

Fink's cryptographic directory "crypto" has been moved to become a subdirectory of "main", in both the
stable and unstable trees.

It is no longer necessary to put something into the crypto directory just because it depends on something
else in the crypto directory.  The crypto directory is now intended for cryptographic software itself.

Notice that this move does not change the situation with respect to openssl licensing.  Packages which
cannot link to apple's openssl but must link to fink's openssl instead must be marked "License:
Restrictive".  The crypto directory remains a natural home for such packages (although not a necessary one).

  -- Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel <at> lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Sjors Gielen | 2 Jul 18:12 2010

Re: testing apt and dpkg


Op 24 jun 2010, om 16:37 heeft Alexander Hansen het volgende geschreven:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> The experimental apt-shlibs violates the Shlibs policy.

Hi Alexander,

I have, due to a lack of time in the past week, only just fixed this in the latest apt versions. The apt-shlibs
and apt-dev packages are now called apt7-shlibs and apt7-dev due to their version "0.7.25.3"; I
considered it overkill (for now) to call them apt725-shlibs. Could you please confirm that was a good
choice and that the original policy violation in the packages is gone?

Files in the experimental package are still the same:
$ dpkg -L apt7-shlibs
/.
/sw
/sw/lib
/sw/lib/libapt-inst.1.1.0.dylib
/sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.0.dylib
/sw/share
/sw/share/doc
/sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs
/sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/AUTHORS
/sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/COPYING
/sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/COPYING.GPL
/sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/README.arch
/sw/share/doc/apt7-shlibs/README.ddtp
(Continue reading)

Alexander Hansen | 3 Jul 17:40 2010
Picon

Re: testing apt and dpkg


Why 7?  I'm assuming we're focusing on libapt-pkg.4.8.0.dylib.

$ otool -D /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib
/sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib:
/sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib

Since the install_name of the library is /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib,
I'd think we'd need "apt4.8-shlibs" or something like that.

On 7/2/10 12:12 PM, Sjors Gielen wrote:
> 
> Op 24 jun 2010, om 16:37 heeft Alexander Hansen het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> The experimental apt-shlibs violates the Shlibs policy.
> 
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> I have, due to a lack of time in the past week, only just fixed this in the latest apt versions. The apt-shlibs
and apt-dev packages are now called apt7-shlibs and apt7-dev due to their version "0.7.25.3"; I
considered it overkill (for now) to call them apt725-shlibs. Could you please confirm that was a good
choice and that the original policy violation in the packages is gone?
> 
> Files in the experimental package are still the same:
> $ dpkg -L apt7-shlibs
> /.
> /sw
(Continue reading)

Alexander Hansen | 3 Jul 17:40 2010
Picon

Re: testing apt and dpkg


Why 7?  I'm assuming we're focusing on libapt-pkg.4.8.0.dylib.

$ otool -D /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib
/sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib:
/sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib

Since the install_name of the library is /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib,
I'd think we'd need "apt4.8-shlibs" or something like that.

On 7/2/10 12:12 PM, Sjors Gielen wrote:

--

-- 
Alexander Hansen
Fink User Liaison
Daniel E. Macks | 4 Jul 22:33 2010

Re: testing apt and dpkg

Alexander Hansen <alexanderk.hansen <at> gmail.com> said:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Why 7?  I'm assuming we're focusing on libapt-pkg.4.8.0.dylib.
>
> $ otool -D /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib
> /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib:
> /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib
>
> Since the install_name of the library is /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib,
> I'd think we'd need "apt4.8-shlibs" or something like that.

Fortunately, both libs changed install_name since the ones in
"apt-shlibs". I wonder if we just got lucky because we update that
thing soooo rarely, and we'd be safer moving forward (assuming someone
now actually cares about keeping this thing up-to-date-er) to put each
of the two libs in separate -shlibs/-dev packages.

dan

--

-- 
Daniel Macks
dmacks <at> netspace.org
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
(Continue reading)

Sjors Gielen | 4 Jul 23:00 2010

Re: testing apt and dpkg


Op 4 jul 2010, om 23:33 heeft Daniel E. Macks het volgende geschreven:

> Alexander Hansen <alexanderk.hansen <at> gmail.com> said:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Why 7?  I'm assuming we're focusing on libapt-pkg.4.8.0.dylib.
>> 
>> $ otool -D /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib
>> /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib:
>> /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib
>> 
>> Since the install_name of the library is /sw/lib/libapt-pkg.4.8.dylib,
>> I'd think we'd need "apt4.8-shlibs" or something like that.
> 
> Fortunately, both libs changed install_name since the ones in
> "apt-shlibs". I wonder if we just got lucky because we update that
> thing soooo rarely, and we'd be safer moving forward (assuming someone
> now actually cares about keeping this thing up-to-date-er) to put each
> of the two libs in separate -shlibs/-dev packages.

Allright. Will do, once I've got time. The KDE aKademy conference is a busy time ;-)

Sjors
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
(Continue reading)

Bastiaan Jacques | 5 Jul 14:46 2010

gnome/gmpc-0.20.0-2 linker failure (needs libz)

Hi,

Fink fails to link gmpc; the linker complains of missing libz symbols
such as _inflateEnd. I solved the problem locally by adding -lz to
SetLDFLAGS, but I don't know whether this should be fixed upstream.

Cheers,

Bastiaan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel <at> lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Alexander Hansen | 5 Jul 15:47 2010
Picon

Re: gnome/gmpc-0.20.0-2 linker failure (needs libz)


On 7/5/10 8:46 AM, Bastiaan Jacques wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Fink fails to link gmpc; the linker complains of missing libz symbols
> such as _inflateEnd. I solved the problem locally by adding -lz to
> SetLDFLAGS, but I don't know whether this should be fixed upstream.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bastiaan
> 
It's really hard to say what should be done without seeing the relevant
build output rather than just a verbal description.  I was unable to
reproduce your problem on 10.5.8.
--

-- 
Alexander Hansen
Fink User Liaison
Bastiaan Jacques | 5 Jul 19:47 2010

Re: gnome/gmpc-0.20.0-2 linker failure (needs libz)

The build output is available here:

   http://bjacques.org/gmpc.buildlog

FWIW, I'm using 10.6 unstable.

Bastiaan

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Alexander Hansen wrote:

> It's really hard to say what should be done without seeing the relevant
> build output rather than just a verbal description.  I was unable to
> reproduce your problem on 10.5.8.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel <at> lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Daniel E. Macks | 5 Jul 21:59 2010

Re: gnome/gmpc-0.20.0-2 linker failure (needs libz)

Reproduced on 10.4/ppc. The unresolved symbols appear to be used
within gmpc itself so it's not an inherted problem (under-linking in
dependent lib).

dan

Bastiaan Jacques <bastiaan <at> bjacques.org> said:
> The build output is available here:
>
>    http://bjacques.org/gmpc.buildlog
>
> FWIW, I'm using 10.6 unstable.
>
> Bastiaan
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>
>> It's really hard to say what should be done without seeing the relevant
>> build output rather than just a verbal description.  I was unable to
>> reproduce your problem on 10.5.8.

--

-- 
Daniel Macks
dmacks <at> netspace.org
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
(Continue reading)


Gmane