Enrique Zanardi writes:
> As elf.h is unrelated to libelf in Linux systems (I don't know
> about it in SVR4 or Solaris, from where that library was ported),
> this test is broken for Linux.
Don't know about these systems, but HP-UX 9.x had a similar problem,
having a efl.h file, without neces
Martin Alonso Soto Jacome wrote:
> > If you think about it, there's really no reason to select a shared
> > library package by hand; if you want a binary that uses it, it'll
> > depend on it; if you want to build against it, you install the -dev
> > package (which depends on it). The only time you
Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a suggestion for libraries: most users don't want or need to
> know about shared libraries when installing and upgrading their system,
> or when adding an app etc.
I totally agree here. The Debian package format includes enough informatio
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think libraries should not need priorities (or they need them much less
>than ordinary program packages). So if they have more or less priority, I
>really don't mind. Go ahead.
I have a suggestion for libraries: most users don't want or need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > So IMHO you should have added to your initial list of packages the ones on
> > which they depend, until all dependencies are satisfied. dselect does this
> > automatically. If you don't like it, it is supposed to be done by hand.
>
> If this is true then ther
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> > > declared (correctly) their dep
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> > declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
> >
> > at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
>
> at depends on libelf0 priority: optional
>
> On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > It seems to me that packages of any priority level should not be dependent
> > upon packages of lower priority.
>
> I totally agree to this.
Yes, I noticed this myself too (in libg++272). I didn't quite
know what to do with it at the time
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[snip]
> It seems to me that packages of any priority level should not be dependent
> upon packages of lower priority.
I totally agree to this. AFAIK, the reason for the "priorities" is that
the users get "good defaults" in dselect. Thus, if someone wants
> I don't see your point, and you seem to have missed mine.
My point is that there's no need for a package with no user-level
functionality of its own, such as a library, to have a priority
of its own.
If an Important package such as 'at' depends on libelf0 for whatever
dubious reason, libelf0 mi
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > >Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> > >declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
> > >
> > > at depends on libelf0 priority: optional
> >
> > This dependency isn't
Dale Scheetz wrote:
>> >at depends on libelf0 priority: optional
>>
>> This dependency isn't needed... hmm...
>>
>> For some reason, the configure script created by autoconf always
>> looks for -lelf and, if it can find it, adds it to the list of
>> searched libraries.
>>
>
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Clint Adams wrote:
>
> > Does this make sense to anyone but me?
>
> It seems unnecessary for shared libraries to have priorities if they're
> useless without programs which depend upon them.
>
I don't see your point, and you seem to have missed mine.
I was trying to point
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> >Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> >declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
> >
> > at depends on libelf0 priority: optional
>
> This d
Dale Scheetz wrote:
>Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
>declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
>
> at depends on libelf0 priority: optional
This dependency isn't needed... hmm...
For some reason, the co
> Does this make sense to anyone but me?
It seems unnecessary for shared libraries to have priorities if they're
useless without programs which depend upon them.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have been working on a prototype of a system to allow "Custom Systems"
that can be installed "simply" with dselect. The approach has been to make
a subdirectory, containing links into the archive for the packages that
are needed by the "Custom System". The technique is working out fine, but
I hav
18 matches
Mail list logo
