Re: Validation failure for libpng15-32bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/2/12 8:56 PM, Sjors Gielen wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> Op 03-02-12 02:49, Alexander Hansen schreef:
>> A)  Do you really need to install the pkgconfig files in a 
>> non-standard location?  This is the BuildDependsOnly package, and
>> it Conflicts/Replaces the normal libpng15, right?
> 
> No, it doesn't. Libpng15-32bit doesn't conflict with libpng15, and
> I don't want it to; that would be quite annoying for anyone
> building packages that need one of both. There's also no technical
> reason to have them conflict.

What?  Are you proposing to have packages that link to both libpng15
and libpng15-32bit?

If not, our standard practice is to have the BuildDependsOnly parts of
related packages Conflict/Replace, even when the two package families
have no file overlap.  It avoids accidentally building against the
wrong one.

> 
>> B)  Probably more importantly (and why I'm cc'ing core): I assume
>> that this didn't validate for you.  As I recall I was busy with
>> other matters (probably Octave) around the time you were getting 
>> feedback on the Wine dependency tree, but I don't recally any
>> mention that this didn't validate, and would therefore either
>> need to install its files in a yet more private location or
>> require an extension to fink's 32-bit type and allowable paths.
> 
> I did mention it:
> 
> 16-10-2011, to fink-devel, Damian (wine maintainer), Gnome list 
> (freetype219 maintainer), Dave (libpng15 maintainer):
> 
>> libpng15 doesn't have this structure at all, and simply installs
>> in %p/bin, %p/include, %p/lib. For libpng15-x86, I've chosen to
>> adher to this closely, and the package installs at
>> %p/bin/libpng15-config-x86 and %p/lib32 -- it has no %p/include,
>> because it would have the same contents as libpng15. Therefore,
>> if a package Build-Depends on libpng15-x86, it should also
>> Build-Depend on libpng15.
> 
> I also asked whether this was OK, and got no feedback:
> 
>> The question now remains: where are we going to place the 32-bit 
>> versions of the libraries? Is -x86 the right naming approach? Is
>> it better to have Type: arch (x86 x86_64) and Package: 
>> libpng15-%type_pkg[arch] ? Or do you have other suggestions?
> 
> Later, you mentioned that libpng15-32bit would be a better name, so
> I changed it. I got no feedback on any of my other questions, so I
> left the build file as I had initially made it.
> 
> Sjors

You *didn't* mention that it FAILS VALIDATION!

Looking over a dpkg -L listing is well and good, but come on now.

Damian has _no_ experience with the innards of fink.  He only knows
what the validator spits out.  If he didn't try a build (and he
doesn't have Lion so I'd bet he didn't), then he's not going to know,
a priori, whether the file structure is allowed or not.

Dave does, but he's a busy professor, and you can't assume "no answer"
== "consent".

Again:  why the rush here?
- -- 
Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
Fink User Liaison
http://finkakh.wordpress.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk8rQsIACgkQB8UpO3rKjQ/yJACfZL/UQ41gvxYqWG6FP1blgwXW
m9wAn0kzPCcX89gukghqpUAH+xQe2r/L
=bj8m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
fink-core mailing list
[email protected]
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.core
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-core