headers
Kevin Burnett | 1 Sep 2005 01:58
Picon

Re: Call for feedback: fink-0.24.10


On Aug 25, 2005, at 9:52 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:

> On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Kevin Burnett wrote:
>
>> dpkg: no, cannot remove libgettext3-dev (--auto-deconfigure will  
>> help):
>> fink-buildlock-gtksourceview-1.2.1-2 depends on libgettext3-dev
>>   libgettext3-dev is to be removed.
>>
>
> It looks like you have a stale buildlock for some reason. Simply  
> remove it, 'dpkg -r fink-buildlock-gtksourceview-1.2.1-2' and then  
> try again.
>
> We intend to make Fink automagically remove stale buildlocks at  
> some point in the future (though it might need a 'fink cleanup).

It looks like that solved the problem, thanks!

- Kevin

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
tom sgouros | 1 Sep 2005 03:48

Re: link trouble, qt3 , more data


Martin Costabel <costabel <at> wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> reinstall method. I think bootstrapping works if you use the fink
> tarball, not the fink-full tarball. The fastest way is of course to
> download the binary installer, Fink-0.8.0-Installer.dmg. Once you have
> this installed, you simply enable unstable if you wish and then run
> selfupdate and update-all.

Ok, I'm an idiot.  But you guys should update the top fink page at
sourceforge that says the binary installer isn't ready yet.  That's why
I did it this way (well, that and my innate gullibility that had me
believing it).   And my vote says to mark the old dlcompat.dylib as
incompatible with qt3, though it would take a few more hours of
compiling that I don't want to do in order to confirm this.  But if it's
obsolete, why not?

And thanks so much, Dave, for the perl snippet to clear the decks.  I'm
sure I'll be using it, though right now I'm getting around it with the
binary image.

 -tom

--

-- 
 ------------------------
 tomfool at as220 dot org
 http://sgouros.com  
 http://whatcheer.net

-------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Brandon Potter | 1 Sep 2005 06:38
Picon

Re: Call for feedback: fink-0.24.10

Same problem here (stale buildlock) for openoffice.org.
I ran the fink selfupdate when this notice first went out, but didn't  
get the buildlock problem till today when doing another selfupdate/ 
update-all combo.
OS 10.4.2, fink 0.24.10-21, xcode 2.1
Have a good day,
Brandon
PS-- manually removing the buildlock fixed it for me too.

On Aug 31, 2005, at 6:58 PM, Kevin Burnett wrote:

>
> On Aug 25, 2005, at 9:52 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Kevin Burnett wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dpkg: no, cannot remove libgettext3-dev (--auto-deconfigure will  
>>> help):
>>> fink-buildlock-gtksourceview-1.2.1-2 depends on libgettext3-dev
>>>   libgettext3-dev is to be removed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It looks like you have a stale buildlock for some reason. Simply  
>> remove it, 'dpkg -r fink-buildlock-gtksourceview-1.2.1-2' and then  
>> try again.
>>
>> We intend to make Fink automagically remove stale buildlocks at
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Alexander K. Hansen | 1 Sep 2005 14:52
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Call for feedback: fink-0.24.10

On 9/1/05, Brandon Potter <gbpotter <at> mac.com> wrote:
> Same problem here (stale buildlock) for openoffice.org.
> I ran the fink selfupdate when this notice first went out, but didn't
> get the buildlock problem till today when doing another selfupdate/
> update-all combo.
> OS 10.4.2, fink 0.24.10-21, xcode 2.1
> Have a good day,
> Brandon
> PS-- manually removing the buildlock fixed it for me too.
> 

I'd like to thank everybody who has provided feedback.

The "stale buildlock" problem isn't within the scope of 0.24.10 to
resolve (especially because they are not infrequently generated by
impatient users hitting ^C too vigorously.  :-) ).  There are plans
for a cleanup routine to remove buildlock packages--this has to be
done carefully so that it doesn't destroy the lock for something
that's still being built.

--AKH

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Alexander K. Hansen | 1 Sep 2005 15:02
Picon
Gravatar

Re: link trouble, qt3 , more data

On 8/31/05, tom sgouros <tomfool <at> as220.org> wrote:
> 
> Martin Costabel <costabel <at> wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> > reinstall method. I think bootstrapping works if you use the fink
> > tarball, not the fink-full tarball. The fastest way is of course to
> > download the binary installer, Fink-0.8.0-Installer.dmg. Once you have
> > this installed, you simply enable unstable if you wish and then run
> > selfupdate and update-all.
> 
> Ok, I'm an idiot.  But you guys should update the top fink page at
> sourceforge that says the binary installer isn't ready yet.  

We did:

2005-06-09: New Fink releases.
Three new Fink releases are available today: version 0.8.0 (for 10.4),
version 0.7.2 (for 10.3), and version 0.6.4 (for 10.2). All three
releases include source files, binary packages, and a Fink installer
for new users.

That's why
> I did it this way (well, that and my innate gullibility that had me
> believing it).   And my vote says to mark the old dlcompat.dylib as
> incompatible with qt3, though it would take a few more hours of
> compiling that I don't want to do in order to confirm this.  But if it's
> obsolete, why not?
> 

It's up to the maintainer, of course.  We needed dlcompat for 10.2,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brandon Potter | 1 Sep 2005 19:30
Picon

Re: Stale buildlocks? (Was Call for feedback: fink-0.24.10)

In my case it was apparently generated by having fink either rebuild  
or reinstall the openoffice package. When it's running, I leave fink  
alone and check back in a couple of hours. I ran both commands back  
to back just kinda playing around. First I ran reinstall then  
rebuild. Just to play around a bit, not because of any problems. :)  
And no, I didn't ^C it. So, I'm currently rebuilding again to see if  
I can duplicate it. Maybe it's a problem with the rebuild command not  
removing the buildlock then when finished...
Obviously interrupting the process could leave a buildlock in place.  
What are some other options that could cause it?
Have a good day,
Brandon
On Sep 1, 2005, at 7:52 AM, Alexander K. Hansen wrote:

> On 9/1/05, Brandon Potter <gbpotter <at> mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Same problem here (stale buildlock) for openoffice.org.
>> I ran the fink selfupdate when this notice first went out, but didn't
>> get the buildlock problem till today when doing another selfupdate/
>> update-all combo.
>> OS 10.4.2, fink 0.24.10-21, xcode 2.1
>> Have a good day,
>> Brandon
>> PS-- manually removing the buildlock fixed it for me too.
>>
>>
>
> I'd like to thank everybody who has provided feedback.
>
> The "stale buildlock" problem isn't within the scope of 0.24.10 to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Alexander K. Hansen | 1 Sep 2005 19:53
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Stale buildlocks? (Was Call for feedback: fink-0.24.10)

On 9/1/05, Brandon Potter <gbpotter <at> mac.com> wrote:
> In my case it was apparently generated by having fink either rebuild
> or reinstall the openoffice package. When it's running, I leave fink
> alone and check back in a couple of hours. I ran both commands back
> to back just kinda playing around. First I ran reinstall then
> rebuild. Just to play around a bit, not because of any problems. :)
> And no, I didn't ^C it. So, I'm currently rebuilding again to see if
> I can duplicate it. Maybe it's a problem with the rebuild command not
> removing the buildlock then when finished...
> Obviously interrupting the process could leave a buildlock in place.
> What are some other options that could cause it?
> Have a good day,
> Brandon

Ooops--quick on the trigger!

I'm not sure--it may be that a sufficiently ungraceful termination in
a build could bypass the lockfile removal.

--

-- 
Alexander K. Hansen
Fink Documenter
[Day Job] Levitated Dipole Experiment
http://psfcwww2.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
tom sgouros | 1 Sep 2005 16:54

Re: link trouble, qt3 , more data


> > Ok, I'm an idiot.  But you guys should update the top fink page at
> > sourceforge that says the binary installer isn't ready yet.  
> 
> We did:
> 
> 2005-06-09: New Fink releases.
> Three new Fink releases are available today: version 0.8.0 (for 10.4),
> version 0.7.2 (for 10.3), and version 0.6.4 (for 10.2). All three
> releases include source files, binary packages, and a Fink installer
> for new users.

Yes, you did.  See my first sentence.  I confused the installer with the
binary packages, due to the posting further down that reads that the
binary installer is only for binary packages.  I also feared that the
warnings against bootstrapping applied to my other options, which is why
I was trying to update from 10.2->10.4 via selfupdate.  Thanks to all
for all the help, and the maintenance work to make this all function.

 -tom

--

-- 
 ------------------------
 tomfool at as220 dot org
 http://sgouros.com  
 http://whatcheer.net

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Benjamin Reed | 1 Sep 2005 20:17
Gravatar

Re: Re: updating bundle-kde-ssl also wants to update bundle-kde

Gary K Olson wrote:

> Therefore, I could not install the bundle-kde-ssl since this package 
> conflicts with bundle-kde.  If I understand correctly, either bundle is 
> a convenience package and does not have to be installed itself.  
> However, I usually install it at the end in order to install any KDE 
> packages that I might have inadvertently left out.  I know that the 
> bundle package is supposed to be installed first, and should then 
> install/update all of kde, but fink usually gets confused for me and 
> stops the build process along the way.  KDE seems to be working fine.

in what way is it getting confused?

bundle-kde-ssl doesn't really exist anymore, there is no ssl nor 
non-ssl, they all link to apple's ssl.  Thus, for convenience/upgrade 
purposes, I made bundle-kde-ssl depend on bundle-kde, so I didn't have 
to maintain the list of "core" packages in 2 different places.

Are you getting an upgrade conflict?

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Alexander K. Hansen | 1 Sep 2005 20:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Re: updating bundle-kde-ssl also wants to update bundle-kde

On 9/1/05, Alexander K. Hansen <alexanderk.hansen <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/05, Gary K Olson <garykolson <at> mac.com> wrote:
> > I just finished updating kde 3.4.2-21 and all the attendant files for
> > the ssl version.  At the end I tried to update bundle-kde-ssl and got:
> >
> > The following package will be installed or updated:
> > bundle-kde-ssl
> > The following 7 additional packages will be installed:
> > bundle-kde kcron kdeadmin3 kdebase3 kdelibs3 kpackage secpolicy
> >
> > Therefore, I could not install the bundle-kde-ssl since this package
> > conflicts with bundle-kde.  If I understand correctly, either bundle
> > is a convenience package and does not have to be installed itself.
> > However, I usually install it at the end in order to install any KDE
> > packages that I might have inadvertently left out.  I know that the
> > bundle package is supposed to be installed first, and should then
> > install/update all of kde, but fink usually gets confused for me and
> > stops the build process along the way.  KDE seems to be working fine.
> >
> > Gary K Olson
> >
> >
> >
> 
> There has been a paradigm shift.  All of KDE is now -ssl and linked to
> the system's OpenSSL libraries.  bundle-kde is what you want instead
> of bundle-kde-ssl (though there should have been a replacement
> procedure of some sort).
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane