Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:09:23 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: popt-1.50 or better?? Message-ID: <44sk382r6k.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <20100724223655.GA6725@thought.org> (Gary Kline's message of "Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:36:55 -0700") References: <20100724005105.GA22574@thought.org> <44vd84x347.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20100724202943.GA6335@thought.org> <4C4B55C4.6090800@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100724223655.GA6725@thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> writes: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:06:12PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 24/07/2010 21:29:43, Gary Kline wrote: >> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:21:12PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: >> >> Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> writes: >> >> >> >>> hey y'all, >> >>> >> >>> there is a program called libots [or ots] that acts to summarize text >> >>> that i'd like to port to freebsd. i grabbed the src from scourceforge >> >>> days ago and found that i need a later version of popt than we have. >> >>> we've got v 1.14 of popt and the configure script from libots says that >> >>> 1.5 is required. i've stumbled around but haven't figured out where to >> >>> grab the newer version. >> >> >> >> 1.14 is the latest version. 1.5 is considerably older. >> > >> > >> > how can 1.50 be older than 1.14? It can't. But you just modified 1.5 into 1.50, which (given that they aren't floating-point numbers) is an important difference. Remember: there can be more than one '.' in a version string. >> Ummm... you seem to be in some sort of timewarp there Gary... The home >> of the popt project appears to be http://freshmeat.net/projects/popt/, >> and there the most recent version available is 1.14. Now, 1.50 would by >> rights be newer than 1.14, but trouble is, 1.50 doesn't exist yet. >> Also, you said 1.50 in the Subject of your e-mail, and 1.5 in the body: >> one of those is probably a typo, and I'm not offering odds on which. >> >> How old is the ots software you're trying to port? If it's from before >> there was popt >= 1.10 available, then it might be something as simple >> as a failure to read all the digits in the popt version number, or >> comparing the numbers alphabetically rather than numerically. Shouldn't >> be too hard to debug. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Matthew > > > hdere are the last few lines of output from configure, ots-0.5.0: > > > checking for pkg-config... /usr/X11R6/bin/pkg-config > checking for glib-2.0 >= 2.0 libxml-2.0 >= 2.4.23... yes > checking OTS_CFLAGS... -I/usr/local/include/glib-2.0 > -I/usr/local/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/local/include/libxml2 > -I/usr/local/include > checking OTS_LIBS... -L/usr/local/lib -lglib-2.0 -lxml2 > checking for poptParseArgvString in -lpopt... no > configure: error: popt 1.5 or newer is required to build ots. > You can download the latest version from > ftp://ftp.rpm.org/pub/rpm/dist/rpm-4.1.x/ > p2 15:33 <tao> [5784] > > what am i missing? Version strings aren't decimal numbers. Most projects use each field as a separate integer. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 . . . 1.49 1.50 1.51 . . . So: 14 is bigger than 5. the version of popt in ports is the latest. Really. Trust Josh Paetzel; he's on top of things.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44sk382r6k.fsf>