RE: [ITP] email-2.3.0
[snip] Also, given that http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nail/nail/README?rev=HEADview=m arkup states: On the other hand, I strongly discourage from porting nail to Windows and environments that make Windows look Unix-like; I won't accept any patches or suggestions that go in this direction. There are two major reasons for this: First, any port makes maintaining harder; there are always more work-arounds in the source, and introducing new features involves the question whether they will work an all supported platforms. The more different a platform behaves from, let's say, the common Unix way, the more hacks have to be made, costing human time that could otherwise have been used to enhance the software for Unix platforms. Windows is just not worth this, and here we are at the second point: Porting software to Windows encourages people to use -- that is: to buy -- Windows. It supports a company that is known to threaten Open Source software like nail. In short, porting nail (or similar free software) to Windows has an ill effect on that software. Don't do it. My general response to arguments like that is: fuck 'em. I'll port it just to be a thorn in the guys side. Harold LOL! -- Gary R. Van Sickle
[ITP] nail-11.11
nail, an enhanced mailx command http://nail.sourceforge.net/ sdesc: nail category: Mail requires: cygwin ldesc: An enhanced mailx command http://www.cse.msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/nail/setup.hint http://www.cse.msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/nail/nail-11.11-1.tar.bz2 http://www.cse.msu.edu/~huntharo/cygwin/release/nail/nail-11.11-1-src.tar.bz2 Caveat: I don't know how to use nail. I need someone that has experience with nail to setup an account and run it. If all is well then the package is probably good to go. Harold
Re: Please upload: openldap-2.2.17-2/libopenldap2_2_7-2.2.17-2/openldap-devel-2.2.17-2
On Oct 15 13:52, Dr. Volker Zell wrote: cd openldap wget http://cygwin.dev.wapme.net/packages/vzell/cygwin/release/openldap/setup.hint wget http://cygwin.dev.wapme.net/packages/vzell/cygwin/release/openldap/openldap-2.2.17-2.tar.bz2 wget http://cygwin.dev.wapme.net/packages/vzell/cygwin/release/openldap/openldap-2.2.17-2-src.tar.bz2 cd openldap-devel wget http://cygwin.dev.wapme.net/packages/vzell/cygwin/release/openldap/openldap-devel/setup.hint wget http://cygwin.dev.wapme.net/packages/vzell/cygwin/release/openldap/openldap-devel/openldap-devel-2.2.17-2.tar.bz2 cd ../libopenldap2_2_7 wget http://cygwin.dev.wapme.net/packages/vzell/cygwin/release/openldap/libopenldap2_2_7/setup.hint wget http://cygwin.dev.wapme.net/packages/vzell/cygwin/release/openldap/libopenldap2_2_7/libopenldap2_2_7-2.2.17-2.tar.bz2 Uploaded. Any reason to keep 2.2.15-2 and libopenldap2? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote: Ross Smith II wrote: [snip] Also, given that http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nail/nail/README?rev=HEADview=markup states: On the other hand, I strongly discourage from porting nail to Windows and environments that make Windows look Unix-like; I won't accept any patches or suggestions that go in this direction. There are two major reasons for this: First, any port makes maintaining harder; there are always more work-arounds in the source, and introducing new features involves the question whether they will work an all supported platforms. The more different a platform behaves from, let's say, the common Unix way, the more hacks have to be made, costing human time that could otherwise have been used to enhance the software for Unix platforms. Windows is just not worth this, and here we are at the second point: Porting software to Windows encourages people to use -- that is: to buy -- Windows. It supports a company that is known to threaten Open Source software like nail. In short, porting nail (or similar free software) to Windows has an ill effect on that software. Don't do it. My general response to arguments like that is: fuck 'em. I'll port it just to be a thorn in the guys side. Harold Good one, Harold. We've been having this exact discussion every year or so... Now that we have managed mounts, however, this threat is actually valid. Normally, I'd be against a package that *requires* managed mounts to build, but in this particular case I'll make an exception. Not that this opinion counts one way or another -- it's up to CGF and Corinna anyway... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing. -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw
Re: [ITP] nail-11.11
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote: nail, an enhanced mailx command http://nail.sourceforge.net/ [snip] Quoting nail.README: Had to create a modified source package that didn't have a file named aux.c (renamed to aaux.c), else the mkpatch step would fail (as would unpacking in general, since files named aux* are not compatible with Windows). ... or, that's another way to do it -- just rip it up. Yay, Harold! +1, BTW (and it's not an auto-reply :-) ). Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing. -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw
Re: [ITP] email-2.3.0
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0800, Ross Smith II wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: I'm sorry but, here again, we're talking about porting an AFAICT, non-standard package to cygwin when we're missing something as basic as mailx (or nail, or whatever). Given that argument, how would a new program ever become standard? By existing in a linux distribution. Seems pretty obvious. Isn't there anyone out there who can perform the dead-simple act of packaging up nail for this purprose? It can't be that simple to port, or someone would have already done it. Christ, I can't even untar nail to my Cygwin box as it contains a file named aux.c. Given that attitude, I think I will just give up working on Cygwin entirely. It's just too hard. cgf
Re: nail-11.11
Igor Pechtchanski writes: On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote: nail, an enhanced mailx command http://nail.sourceforge.net/ [snip] Quoting nail.README: Had to create a modified source package that didn't have a file named aux.c (renamed to aaux.c), else the mkpatch step would fail (as would unpacking in general, since files named aux* are not compatible with Windows). ... or, that's another way to do it -- just rip it up. Yay, Harold! +1, BTW (and it's not an auto-reply :-) ). Slash and burn baby, slash and burn! ;) Could somebody actually run nail and tell me if it works? I just need a looks like it works. If it doesn't work, don't think you need to send me a real descriptive report, just say tried it with IMAP/POP3/SMTP/etc., didn't work as expected and I'll take it from there. Thanks in advance, Harold
