On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:31:49PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
I second par.
I'm in favor of this, too.
Ok, that makes three votes so far - I've uploaded it.
Lapo, please, send an announcement.
You have my vote for splint.
-Samrobb
I second par.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
In that case:
Ready for upload to s.r.c as soon as someone with the relevant permissions
has a moment.
BTW, keep the URLs in the message:
http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
Volker Quetschke wrote:
Hi!
1. grace
date : 25 Nov 2002
version: 5.1.12-1
status : updated package available for review
notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
votes : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
Max Bowsher wrote:
Volker Quetschke wrote:
Hi!
1. grace
date : 25 Nov 2002
version: 5.1.12-1
status : updated package available for review
notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
votes : 2 (Lapo
Volker Quetschke wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
1. grace
date : 25 Nov 2002
version: 5.1.12-1
status : updated package available for review
notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
reviews:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I send the last mail before I read your mail Earnie.
| 1. grace
| ...
| Max did a review in:
| ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html
|
| and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url
| mentioned above.
|
| OK,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
|1. grace
|...
|OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following
|notes:
|
|- The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on
|reinstall is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read
|that. I suggest
Volker Quetschke wrote:
Hmm, I thought the:
- -Recommended reading:
+Recommended reading: ( files are in /usr/grace/ )
would be enough for that.
Here is the file as it is now, |-indented:
| GRACE - GRaphing, Advanced Computation and Exploration of data
|
| Recommended reading: (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
|Hmm, I thought the:
|
|- -Recommended reading:
|+Recommended reading: ( files are in /usr/grace/ )
|
|would be enough for that.
|
| Here is the file as it is now, |-indented:
|
| | GRACE - GRaphing, Advanced Computation and Exploration of data
|
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Volker Quetschke wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I send the last mail before I read your mail Earnie.
| 1. grace
| ...
| Max did a review in:
| ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html
|
| and all proposed changes are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Igor,
| Hope the following chunk helps:
|
| #!/bin/sh
| [ ! -e /etc/gracerc ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.default /etc/gracerc
| [ ! -e /etc/gracerc.user ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.user.default
/etc/gracerc.user
|
| And include /etc/gracerc.default and
Volker Quetschke wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Igor,
Hope the following chunk helps:
#!/bin/sh
[ ! -e /etc/gracerc ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.default /etc/gracerc
[ ! -e /etc/gracerc.user ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.user.default
/etc/gracerc.user
And include
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
| Actually, maybe the postinstall *should* use -e, not -f - just in case
| someone wants to do some symlink trickery.
Changed and uploaded!
Volker
- --
PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E
Volker Quetschke wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Actually, maybe the postinstall *should* use -e, not -f - just in
case someone wants to do some symlink trickery.
Changed and uploaded!
In that case:
Ready for upload to s.r.c as soon as someone with the relevant
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Volker Quetschke wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Actually, maybe the postinstall *should* use -e, not -f - just in
case someone wants to do some symlink trickery.
Changed and uploaded!
In that case:
Ready
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
| 1. grace
|
| date : 25 Nov 2002
| version: 5.1.12-1
| status : updated package available for review
| notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
| reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
| 1. grace
|
| date : 25 Nov 2002
| version: 5.1.10-1
| status : not reviewed
| notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
| votes : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
| url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1.tar.bz2
|
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Max:
IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool
commands would be better.
Earnie:
A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require
autotools. IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly
is
Volker Quetschke wrote:
Hi Max,
I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are:
~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
I've never used grace, but it's a pity for a package to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
|I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are:
|~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
|~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
|~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
The urls above now points to the new
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
3. LPRng
date : 21 Jan 2003
version: 3.8.19-1
status : reviewed; updated package available
notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
3. LPRng
date : 21 Jan 2003
version: 3.8.19-1
status : reviewed; updated package available
notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
reviews:
Earnie Boyd wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool
commands would be better.
A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require
autotools. IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly
is autoconf mandated.
Max Bowsher wrote:
IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool
commands would be better.
A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require
autotools. IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it
certainly
is autoconf mandated. The configure script
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Pavel:
:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
Max:
Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
preference :}.
Max:
Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a
Charles Wilson wrote:
Pavel:
:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it
is.
Max:
Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly
your preference :}.
No, this wasn't me.
Max:
Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be
-1, and I
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:16PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Pavel:
:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
Max:
Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
preference :}.
Max:
Personally, I don't see why the 1st
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
I have a suggestion:
foo-1.0-0.1
foo-1.0-0.2
foo-1.0-0.3
foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready
foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
and sends a 'Please upload' email
That's fine with me, but I
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release
numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release...
Now, I can *live* with that (but not especially *like* it). What about
pre-test updated versions (after a package has been officially
Max:
Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly
your preference :}.
No, this wasn't me.
Sorry, I didn't mean to misattribute.
I have a suggestion:
foo-1.0-0.1
foo-1.0-0.2
foo-1.0-0.3
foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready
foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release
numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release...
Now, I can *live* with that (but not especially *like* it). What about
pre-test updated
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
I have a suggestion:
foo-1.0-0.1
foo-1.0-0.2
foo-1.0-0.3
foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready
foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
and sends a 'Please upload' email
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:37PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
I have a suggestion:
foo-1.0-0.1
foo-1.0-0.2
foo-1.0-0.3
foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready
foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 06:44, Max Bowsher wrote:
IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions
at all.
And upset may not order -0.* correctly, but it doesn't choke. I have a
package whose release is 0.max currently in my local upset tree.
It parses the package
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:37PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
I have a suggestion:
foo-1.0-0.1
foo-1.0-0.2
foo-1.0-0.3
foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready
foo-1.0-1
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS
snapshots. So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the
packages on the cygwin mirrors.
Umm, Chuck, the above suggestion was intended only for different
pre-releases of the package with the
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine.
I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid
confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine:
Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine.
I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid
confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine:
Bob,
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget
about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities
for which I apologise. The important thing is to keep the packages coming.
Don't go away mad. I heartily appreciate your efforts to
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:59:29PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to
the absense of release notes for packages in setup. If there were a way
to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to
the same
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:26:10PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget
about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities
for which I apologise.
I don't think you've overestimated your responsibilities. I think the
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your
package is out. Please, rename the package files.
As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the
packages remain as follows:
5. TCM
date : 27 Jan 2003
version: 2.20-1
status :
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your
package is out. Please, rename the package files.
As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the
packages remain as follows:
:) It
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your
package is out. Please, rename the package files.
As you wish. I changed all occurences back
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
No. You should not touch this number until the first release of
your package is out. Please, rename the package files.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:55:45AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
3. LPRng
date : 21 Jan 2003
version: 3.8.19-1
status : reviewed; updated package available
notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
Hi Danilo,
thank you for testing and reporting the bugs. I'm currently working on a
solution for the 2 problems you addressed.
A workaround would be setting TCM_HOME to /usr/X11R6, but I'll fix it in
the source.
I'll let you know when I've got new tarballs.
Regards,
Daniel
Danilo Turina
5. TCM
date : 27 Jan 2003
version: 2.20-1
status : not reviewed
notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html
votes : 2 (Christopher and Lapo)
url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
It seems like you've replied only to me and not the list. I'm forwarding
you message there.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:42:26 +0100
From: Volker Quetschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pending packages status
Hi!
3
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
[snip]
10. pdksh
...
votes : 2 (Christopher and Corinna)
[snip]
Hi,
I don't know if my vote counts, since I'm not actually a maintainer, but
I'd like to see this as an official package.
Igor
--
2. nfs-server
date : 09 Dec 2002
version: 2.2.47-1
status : reviewed; there are several pending issues (more info
can be found in the nfs related threads starting after
Feb 11, 2003)
Just wanted to let folks know that I haven't forgotten
about this, but that other
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
[snip]
10. pdksh
...
votes : 2 (Christopher and Corinna)
[snip]
Hi,
I don't know if my vote counts, since I'm not actually a maintainer, but
I'd like to see this as an official package.
Igor
+1
In case it needs more
Napsan da 2003.02.20 16:12, (autor: Nicholas Wourms):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Napsan da 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov):
1. grace
2. nfs-server
3. LPRng
4. ifhp
5. TCM
6. par
7. pdksh
There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(.
Napsan da 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov):
1. grace
2. nfs-server
3. LPRng
4. ifhp
5. TCM
6. par
7. pdksh
There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(.
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html
Regards.
--
+---+
| Marcel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Napsan da 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov):
1. grace
2. nfs-server
3. LPRng
4. ifhp
5. TCM
6. par
7. pdksh
There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(.
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html
Not that I object, but as someone who is well
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp.
TCM).
My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe
this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o)
TCM-Testers welcome (anyway)
Please, be patient with an impatient newbie :)
Thanx,
Daniel
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp.
TCM).
My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe
this is true
Just a FYI:
--- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. LPRng
4. ifhp
7. par
I vote for all 3 of these (assuming they work). I plan to
review when I get the chance but I've got a big project right now.
1. grace
6. TCM
I don't have X11 installed to review these.
Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp.
TCM).
My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe
this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o)
TCM-Testers welcome (anyway)
Regards,
Daniel
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
[...]
6. TCM
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote:
I do think that a version number should uniquely identify a version,
though. A possibility that was not considered last time this was
discussed is to start the reviewing at -0.1, going -0.2, -0.3, etc.,
and then bump to -1 on release.
Feel free to
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote:
Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to
ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). Updated files are here:
http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote:
Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except
the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere).
Updated files are here:
http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote:
Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package
version number when releasing an updated version in the process of
reviewing.
Didn't the last discussion on this agree on *DO* update the
Cygwin-specific release
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote:
I do think that a version number should uniquely identify a version, though.
A possibility that was not considered last time this was discussed is to
start the reviewing at -0.1, going -0.2, -0.3, etc., and then bump to -1 on
release.
Feel free to
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 01:18:05PM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote:
Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except
the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere).
What problems exactly are you having with Ghostscript? I'll assume
that you're referring to the Cygwin
- Original Message -
From: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:11:59 +0100 (CET)
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote:
Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to
ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere).
From: Dario Alcocer alcocer at helixdigital dot com
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:35:28 -0800
What problems exactly are you having with Ghostscript?
I'll assume that you're referring to the Cygwin version of Ghostscript.
They may not be a problem with ghostscript at all, contrary to what
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 11:25:25AM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote:
The .ps was generated from a perl script that exited without
error. The build works on debian with perl 5.8.0 and GNU Ghostscript
7.05. I'm using those same versions of each on cywin.
Compare the Postscript file that was produced
- Original Message -
From: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:37:20 +0100 (CET)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
4. nasm
version: 0.98.35-1
status
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Daniel Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:02:09 -0800 (PST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
...
An alternative would be to have a separate nasm-doc package with all
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
4. nasm
version: 0.98.35-1
status : not reviewed
I've reviewed the packaging of nasm and it seems to be OK. The only
thing that seems to be missing is the documentation. The documentation
provided by the binary package includes only the man pages
--- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, nasm has a very complete documentation with a lot
of examples and available in several differen output formats (html,
info, pdf). So, I think including one the .info files in the binary
package along with the man pages is a good idea and
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
1. xinetd
version: 2.3.9-1
status : reviewed
notes : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00069.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00249.html
reviews:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
5. sunrpc
6. nfs-server
Definitely my vote, too.
Both have my vote
Corinna
--
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
Hack Kampbjørn
- Original Message -
From: Hack Kampbjorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Pending packages status
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
5. sunrpc
6. nfs-server
Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
5. sunrpc
Me too. I'd like to build rpc-aware xinetd with sunrpc package.
Errrwhat do you mean?
1) xinetd can be built so that it (somehow) USES rpc calls, and you want
to do that, or
2) you're simply proposing to include startup scripts for sunrpc (e.g.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:42:48PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
Now, I didn't actuallly RUN the thing. But, assuming the above problems
are addressed, I vote yes.
Ditto for me on both counts.
Same here.
From: Charles Wilson cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu
spkg doesn't seem to work properly -- the patch is VERY large.
This is because xinetd-2.3.9-1.sh sets objdir=${srcdir}.
You have to run clean before spkg. all target creates a correct diff
file. objdir have to be set to srcdir because
1. xinetd
version: 2.3.9-1
status : not reviewed
notes : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00069.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00249.html
votes : ?!
url: http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/xinetd/xinetd-2.3.9-1.tar.bz2
Hi Pavel,
1. xerces-c
...
2. xinetd
...
3. chkconfig
...
You probably missed my package proposal from yesterday:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
Bye
Volker
--
PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9
Hi Pavel,
As Volker Quetschke pointed out, the packages status list I've posted
earlier today was missing a package. Here is an updated version which
includes the missing package.
what happened to doxygen ?
Regards,
Jörg
what happened to doxygen ?
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00226.html
Someone needs to review it, but noone seems to be interested in doing so.
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
3. xerces-c
[...]
reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg9.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00048.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00047.html
votes : 3 (Gerrit, Gareth and Robert)
AFAICS, this
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:46:42AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
Hello,
I think 'doxygen' and 'tmake' have been idleing for too long now. I'd like
to remove them from this list starting with the next issue. It doesn't
look like that just keeping them around will speed up the process of
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:56:48AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
4. sysvinit
version: 2.84-2
6. initscripts
version: 0.9-1
It seems like these two are ready to be released - is there any reason
that they are still not on sourceware ? Is it OK to upload them ?
AFAICS, yes.
Corinna
--
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
6. initscripts
version: 0.9-1
status : reviewed; needs some packaging fixes
I did the fixes already a while ago...
Sorry, my mistake :( While reading the thread I got lost - and I red it
more than once :) Reading it again I've found the right
--- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6. initscripts
votes : ??
Also, I voted for this. IIRC, several other people did too.
Really, it complements sysvinit so well that I'd really like
to see it on the mirrors ASAP.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
--- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6. initscripts
votes : ??
Also, I voted for this. IIRC, several other people did too.
Really, it complements sysvinit so well that I'd really like
to see it on the mirrors ASAP.
Ok, I missed it
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
4. rsync
version: 2.5.5-2
6. agetty
version: 2.1-1
Hi,
I've just uploaded the above two packages. Lapo, can I remove version
2.5.4-1?
Pavel, I like your status reports!
Thanks,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Hello, Corinna
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
4. rsync
version: 2.5.5-2
Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm
not sure that if it should be uploaded.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:05:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
Hello, Corinna
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
4. rsync
version: 2.5.5-2
Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
4. rsync
version: 2.5.5-2
Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm
not sure that if it should be uploaded.
Yes, I did, and I mulled over it a bit. As far as I understood it,
the new package doesn't
Ciao, Gerrit! :)
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
3. xerces-c
IIRC, I voted yes for this package too, it seems the mail didn't make
it through. I did parts of the patch so I'm not the right person to
review it.
I'll try to review the packaging in the weekend if noone beats me
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Lapo Luchini wrote:
2. tmake
Whops, I see my message was a bit obscure, but was meant to be a vote.
Well I'll say it not tmake seems useful enough to me to vote it.
Ok, then ;) I'll put your vote in the next issue.
2. tmake
version: 1.8-1
status : reviewed, ready for upload once it gets the necessary votes
reviews: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-09/msg00222.html
votes : 1 (Joshua)
url:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/tmake-1.8-1-package.tgz
Whops, I see
I made a mistake with doxygen - the status was wrong. Sorry :(
Below is the fixed information.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
1. doxygen
version: 1.2.18-1
status : reviewed, needs minor fixes
notes : this package is currently vetoed
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 18:44, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
2. CMake
version: 1.4.5-1
status : reviewed, ready for upload
Uploaded.
3. swig
version: 1.3.15-1
status : update to an existing package - review is not required
Uploaded.
swig-1.3.11-1-src.tar.bz2 and
swig-1.3.11-1.tar.bz2
removed.
Please consider changing maintainer. I regret doxygen was vetoed by my failure.
Many people wait for being available on cygwin.
Ryunosuke
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
