Re: [Fink-devel] Uniform description for obsolete packages?!

[D. M. <dm...@ne...>]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:17:40 +0200, Max Horn  wrote:
> Am 18.04.2011 um 17:49 schrieb Daniel Macks:
> There are some cases were the validator incorrectly complains about 
> perfectly fine packages. Currently, in such cases, the package 
> maintainer then is forced to either make weird unnatural hacks to 
> fool the validator (YUCK), or has to live without being able to use 
> -m. 
>
> A concrete example are the geant4.8 and geant4.9 packages, for which 
> the validator complains about them hardcoding /sw. In reality, 
> though, the *upstream* authors hardcoded /sw, and the .info file 
> tries to fix this by replacing /sw with %p. 

Can you convert it to a PatchFile? Val is smart enough to know that 
removing hardcoded /sw is a Good Thing, so "removed" lines *are* 
allowed to have it. 

Val could have a similar intelligence in PatchScript, where we decide 
on some blessed incantation for this "replacing /sw with prefix" useful 
action. For example, "hardcoded /sw is allowed in PatchScript iff it's 
in this exact string: ,/sw,%p," because I can't think of any way that 
string could be used in other ways. 

dan

  --
Daniel Macks
dm...@ne...