Updated: whois-4.6.14-1

2004-05-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw
Whois version 4.6.14 is now available.  Please upload when convenient.

BINARY: http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.6.14-1.tar.bz2
SOURCE:
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.6.14-1-src.tar.bz2
HINT: http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/setup.hint


RE: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.7

2003-09-22 Thread Mark Bradshaw
Thanks.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.7
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:01:53AM -0400, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> > http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.6.7-1.tar.bz2
> > http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.6.7-1-src.tar.bz2
> 
> Uploaded.  I removed 4.6.1-1.
> 
> Corinna
> 
> -- 
> Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 


RE: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.7

2003-09-22 Thread Mark Bradshaw
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.6.7-1.tar.bz2
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.6.7-1-src.tar.bz2

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.7
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 08:30:21PM -0400, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> > I've got new whois packages (4.6.7) ready for upload.  The URL is
> > http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/.
> 
> Please always send the full URLs to the files to upload.
> 
> Corinna
> 
> -- 
> Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 


Updated Package: Whois 4.6.7

2003-09-21 Thread Mark Bradshaw
I've got new whois packages (4.6.7) ready for upload.  The URL is
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/.

Mark



RE: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.6

2003-07-11 Thread Mark Bradshaw
I haven't changed the hint file in forever.   I didn't think maintainers
needed to after the first release.  I just assumed christopher or corrinna
did that in the main copy for updates.

I don't think I'll need to worry about compiling 4.6.6 against 1.3.22.  The
upgrade isn't anything magical, so no one will suffer if they stick with
1.3.x and the old whois.

Mark Bradshaw
Salem Web Network
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
9401 Courthouse Road, Suite 300
Chesterfield, VA 23832
804.768.9404 x100

> -Original Message-
> From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.6
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > I've got new whois 4.6.6 packages ready for upload.  They are
> built against
> > 1.5.0, so I guess they need to be set as Test packages.  The URL is:
> > http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/
> >
> > Mark Bradshaw
>
> Mark,
>
> You'll need to set the packages up as test packages yourself, in your
> setup.hint.  You could probably do it by simply adding the
>
> prev: 4.5.15-1
> curr: 4.5.17-1
> test: 4.6.6-1
>
> lines to your setup.hint, but I may have missed something.
> Also, it looks like you're using this as an opportunity to upgrade the
> package to a new upstream release, as well.  You may want to first release
> the new version compiled against 1.3.22, and then release 4.6.6-2 compiled
> against 1.5.0.  Again, it's your choice as the maintainer.
>   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!
>
> "I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
> to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton
>
>



Updated Package: Whois 4.6.6

2003-07-11 Thread Mark Bradshaw
I've got new whois 4.6.6 packages ready for upload.  They are built against
1.5.0, so I guess they need to be set as Test packages.  The URL is:
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/

Mark Bradshaw
Salem Web Network
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
9401 Courthouse Road, Suite 300
Chesterfield, VA 23832
804.768.9404 x100



RE: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.1 (fwd)

2003-02-06 Thread Mark Bradshaw
I've got the new 4.6.2 packages ready for upload.  The URL is:
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pavel Tsekov
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.1 (fwd)


Forwarding here just in case that it goes unnoticed in the main list due 
to the large volume of messages there.

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:14:59 +0100
From: Michael Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Updated Package: Whois 4.6.1

Hi,

On 27-Dec-2002 20:07, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> The most recent version of GNU Whois (4.6.1) has been uploaded to
> sourceware.

This version no longer works with .org domains.  Looks like 4.6.2 is out 
on http://www.linux.it/~md/software/ .
Would it be possible to release this version, at your convenience?

TIA,

  - Michael


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/






whois update: 4.6.1

2002-12-26 Thread Mark Bradshaw
I've got an update to the whois package at
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois.  Could someone please look it over
and upload if it's OK.




Re: Fw: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe

2002-11-20 Thread Mark Bradshaw
I've decided to call it quits on the package.  Announcement at
http://www.networksimplicity.com/openssh/.




Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe

2002-11-19 Thread Mark Bradshaw
- Original Message -
From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe


>
> And to reply to Mark at the same time:
>
> > At 12:50 PM 11/19/2002, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> >> If a small howto would fix the problem then I think Mike Erdeley's
> >> would've fixed it, but it hasn't.
>
> It's out of date, as far as I can see (now even simpler), and not
> wonderfully easy to find.
>
> If it was up to date, and easy to find, then I think it *would* have fixed
> the problem.

He's probably in the same boat I am.  Not enough time.  Corinna would be the
ideal person to handle this, being the closest person to it, but I don't
think she's at all interested.  I might be assuming too much there.

Mark




Fw: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe

2002-11-19 Thread Mark Bradshaw
 Maybe some of it would.  I think the problem is that the cygwin installer
 assumes that you actually know about cygwin and want to install it.  I
think
 there's a lot of windows folks who hear about ssh/openssh and want it, but
 don't know about or want the cygwin environment.  They just want to push
 "next" a few times and have an openssh server, never mind this bash stuff.
 I'm not sure you can really "fix" the cygwin installer, since it's not
 broken.  It's just too general for the task.

 As I've told Rob I've about reached the end of my interest in doing a
 separate package.  In fact that's been the case for a while, but I'm not
 sure I have any good input on how to handle this problem in another fashion
 other than a separate install process.  I'd certainly be willing to help if
 someone has a suggestion.

 Mark

> - Original Message -
> From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe
>
>
> > Perhaps I'm misreading Max's intent but I believe he's suggesting that
> there
> > is more to gain by understanding, categorizing, and finding the solution
> to
> > users' problems with Cygwin's OpenSSH installation than in trying to
> generate
> > a different, incompatible installation.  Wouldn't at least some of what
> you've
> > learned about creating your OpenSSH version based on Cygwin be helpful
in
> > making the Cygwin installation simpler?  Is there a reason not to pursue
> this
> > goal?
> >
> > Larry Hall  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > RFK Partners, Inc.  http://www.rfk.com
> > 838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
> > Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
>




Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe

2002-11-19 Thread Mark Bradshaw
If a small howto would fix the problem then I think Mike Erdeley's would've
fixed it, but it hasn't.

- Original Message -
From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe


> > "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't see any problem with being mutually exclusive, though. If
> >> someone wants Cygwin, they don't need NetworkSimplicity.
> >> ( Better still would be for NetworkSimplicity to metamorphose from a
> >> binary distribution to a HOWTO )
>
> Mark Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://netsim.ibforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=194
> >
> > The third post shows the problem.  People don't know where to go once
> > they're done with the installer.
>
> OK... so wouldn't a (*very* small) HOWTO solve that?
>
> Max.
>
>




RE: TCP Wrappers

2002-03-22 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I'd love to see it.

> -Original Message-
> From: Prentis Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: TCP Wrappers
> 
> 
> Ok, that was two votes ;)
> 
> I have been using the code for several months now, so I am 
> pretty confident with it.  The packages can be downloaded from 
> http://www.stonegard.com/cygwin/
> 
> Let me know when you have gotten them, or should I get access 
> to push them up myself somehow?
> 
> -- 
> Prentis Brooks| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 703-265-0914 | AIM: 
> PrentisBrooks
> Senior System Administrator - Web Infrastructure & Security
> 
>A knight is sworn to valor.  His heart knows only 
> virtue.  His blade
>defends the helpless.  His word speaks only truth.  
> His wrath undoes
>the wicked. - the old code of Bowen, last of the dragonslayers
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-17 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Ok Chuck.  Thanks for the demo. :o)  I should have utmpdump wrapped up
tomorrow, with a patch to cygutils.  I'll also zip up my killall version to
see if you want to include that.

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > I've just added you to the cygwin-apps group on sources.redhat.com:
> > 
> > cvs -d :ext:sources.redhat.com:/cvs/cygwin-apps co .
> > 
> > Feel free to add a cygutils directory.
> 
> 
> Okay -- I've added it and imported v0.9.7.  Also, I've added 
> Mark's last 
> implementation and the supporting autotools changes so that 
> last builds 
> within cygutils. There is a licensing problem with Mark's changes to 
> utmpdump so we're still waiting on that and his killall 
> implementation.
> 
> Mark -- to see the diff, do the following:
> 
> $ export CVSROOT=:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/cygwin-apps
> $ cvs login
> (Logging in to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> CVS password: anoncvs
> $ cvs co cygutils
> $ cd cygutils
> $ cvs diff -r v0_9_7 > my_patch
> Warning: Remote host denied X11 forwarding.
> cvs server: Diffing .
> cvs server: tag v0_9_7 is not in file bootstrap
> cvs server: Diffing licenses
> cvs server: Diffing src-bsd
> cvs server: Diffing src-gpl
> cvs server: tag v0_9_7 is not in file src-gpl/last.1
> cvs server: tag v0_9_7 is not in file src-gpl/last.c
> cvs server: tag v0_9_7 is not in file src-gpl/lastb.1
> cvs server: tag v0_9_7 is not in file src-gpl/oldutmp.h
> cvs server: Diffing src-pd
> 
> Translation:
>I added the last.1, lastb.1, last.c and oldutmp.h files to the 
> src-gpl subdirectory.
>I made additional changes to:
>  AUTHORS (added Mark)
>  ChangeLog (always a good idea...)
>  PROGLIST (added last)
>  README (mentioned last)
>  src/Makefile.am  ( This is the biggie )
>  src/Makefile.in  (running bootstrap regenerates this
>based on the Makefile.am changes)
> 
> That's the kind of thing that I'd expect as a large "add a 
> new program 
> to cygutils" patch.
> 
> --Chuck
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-16 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Charles,
   When you get back to reading the list, I'm ready to include last,
utmpdump, and killall (working without /proc!) in cygutils.  Drop me a
line...

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:11 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:06:08PM -0500, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> > Charles:
> > OK.  Scratch killall.  I didn't realize it used /proc.  
> :o(  Anyway,
> > what do you want for last and utmpdump.
> > 
> > Anyone else:
> > Is there anyone currently working on a /proc filesystem, or have
> > plans that direction?
> 
> Oooh... big job... pretty beeg job...
> 
> Corinna
> 
> -- 
> Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails 
> regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Charles:
OK.  Scratch killall.  I didn't realize it used /proc.  :o(  Anyway,
what do you want for last and utmpdump.

Anyone else:
Is there anyone currently working on a /proc filesystem, or have
plans that direction?

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Bradshaw 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:01 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: last package
> 
> 
> I think they would fit there just fine.  All three of them 
> (will be finished with killall soon).  What do you need from me?
> 
> Mark



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I think they would fit there just fine.  All three of them (will be finished
with killall soon).  What do you need from me?

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:44 PM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> 
> > Very small.  All source combined is 33KB.  Executables are 
> 23.5KB.  This is
> > just last and utmpdump.  
> > 
> > You want 'em?
> 
> 
> Dunno yet.  I'm not really concerned about # kilobytes.  My 
> "rule" for 
> cygutils is "one .c file per application" -- I want to limit 
> cygutils to 
> very simple, small apps.  (I'm assuming that nobody would try 
> to put the 
> entire source code to MSWord into a single .c file).
> 
> Take a look at the current cygutils -src archive and tell me 
> what you think
> 
> --Chuck
> 
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Very small.  All source combined is 33KB.  Executables are 23.5KB.  This is
just last and utmpdump.  

You want 'em?

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:10 PM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> How "big" are they?  If they are only a single .c file each 
> (killall.c, 
> utmpdump.c, last.c) then they are candidates for addition to the 
> cygutils package, if you'd prefer./.
> 
> One of these days I'll get around to creating a sourceware-based CVS 
> tree for cygutils...Chris, how do I do that?
> 
> --Chuck
> 
> Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> 
> > I don't mind.  It's already done, actually.  Now I'm eyeing 
> up their version
> > of killall too.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > 
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:47 PM
> >>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> >>Subject: Re: last package
> >>
> >>
> >>On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:29:43AM -0500, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> >>
> >>>Takes lots of shoe-horning, but it can be done.
> >>>
> >>It doesn't matter.  If you don't like to port it, just
> >>forget it.  I just thought it would be a good idea to
> >>borrow utmpdump from sysvinit as well.
> >>
> >>Corinna
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails 
> >>regarding Cygwin to
> >>Cygwin Developer
> >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Red Hat, Inc.
> >>
> >>
> 
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I don't mind.  It's already done, actually.  Now I'm eyeing up their version
of killall too.

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:47 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:29:43AM -0500, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> > Takes lots of shoe-horning, but it can be done.
> 
> It doesn't matter.  If you don't like to port it, just
> forget it.  I just thought it would be a good idea to
> borrow utmpdump from sysvinit as well.
> 
> Corinna
> 
> -- 
> Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails 
> regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Takes lots of shoe-horning, but it can be done.

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Bradshaw 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:18 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: last package
> 
> 
> I'll take a look at it.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:18 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: last package
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 01:08:50AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:08 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: last package
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Great.  Now I have a question.  Last is a part of the sysvinit
> > > > package.
> > > > > What's the policy on doing a package on only a portion 
> > of someone
> > > > else's
> > > > > package?  Technically it's no problem...
> > > > 
> > > > Yep, no problem.
> > > 
> > > Yep, just rip it out and make your own nice package from it.
> > 
> > Btw., while you're at it, what about utmpdump?
> > 
> > Corinna
> > 
> > -- 
> > Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails 
> > regarding Cygwin to
> > Cygwin Developer
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> > 
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I'll take a look at it.

> -Original Message-
> From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:18 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 01:08:50AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -
> > > From: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:08 AM
> > > Subject: RE: last package
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Great.  Now I have a question.  Last is a part of the sysvinit
> > > package.
> > > > What's the policy on doing a package on only a portion 
> of someone
> > > else's
> > > > package?  Technically it's no problem...
> > > 
> > > Yep, no problem.
> > 
> > Yep, just rip it out and make your own nice package from it.
> 
> Btw., while you're at it, what about utmpdump?
> 
> Corinna
> 
> -- 
> Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails 
> regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Cool.  I'm not too sure which category is appropriate.  I thought possibly
either Base or Utils.

sdesc: "last"
ldesc: "This utility searches through historical information kept in
/var/log/wtmp to determine who logged in, where they came from, when they
logged in, and how long they stayed."
category: Base
requires: cygwin


> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:09 AM
> To: Mark Bradshaw; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:08 AM
> Subject: RE: last package
> 
> 
> > Great.  Now I have a question.  Last is a part of the sysvinit
> package.
> > What's the policy on doing a package on only a portion of someone
> else's
> > package?  Technically it's no problem...
> 
> Yep, no problem.
> 
> Rob
> 



RE: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Great.  Now I have a question.  Last is a part of the sysvinit package.
What's the policy on doing a package on only a portion of someone else's
package?  Technically it's no problem...

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:06 AM
> To: Mark Bradshaw; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: last package
> 
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> Rob
> ===
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:53 AM
> Subject: last package
> 
> 
> > Any interest in a ported version of "last" for cygwin?  I find it
> useful
> > when some sort of remote shell program is run on cygwin (i.e.
> openssh).
> >
> > Mark
> >
> 



last package

2002-01-15 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Any interest in a ported version of "last" for cygwin?  I find it useful
when some sort of remote shell program is run on cygwin (i.e. openssh).

Mark



RE: whois package

2002-01-11 Thread Mark Bradshaw

> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 08:55:50PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >Thanks for making those changes. Uploaded to sources - make your
> >announcement :} (You may wish to wait a little for rcn at 
> least to pick
> >up the package).
> >
> >Also, when sending the announce, send to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], not
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED], and consider making your Reply-To: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> And, don't add [ANNOUNCEMENT] to the beginning of subject.  
> That gets added
> automatically when the mail shows up in the cygwin mailing list.
> 
> I know, I know.  "This really should be in a FAQ".

Well, you know Christopher, patches ARE gratefully accepted.

  I always wanted to say that.

> 
> cgf
> 



RE: whois package

2002-01-10 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I'm sorry to keep putting you guys through this, but could someone check
over the new packages.  I've updated from 4.5.15 to 4.5.17, which included
an update to the .edu name servers.  

http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Bradshaw 
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:30 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: whois package
> 
> 
> Actually, hold that thought.  There's been an update, and 
> it's decently
> important... :o(
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mark Bradshaw 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:21 PM
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: FW: whois package
> > 
> > 
> > Robert, I think I'm all ready.  I've made the changes you and Gerrit
> > suggested.  Small correction to the Makefile in the source to 
> > correct the
> > prefix.  Slightly expanded readme to explain the patch and 
> > how to apply it.
> > Patch and readme moved to a CYGWIN-PATCHES directory.  
> > 
> > I'm ready when you are.
> > 
> > http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:35 AM
> > > To: Mark Bradshaw; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: whois package
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Just wanted to drop in a reminder about the whois 
> > package.  Could I
> > > get an
> > > > official/unofficial nanny to check it over, or at least a 
> > > note telling
> > > me to
> > > > shut up til people have more time?
> > > 
> > > Looks OK Mark. Does it build OOTB? I ask because the source 
> > > archive has
> > > no CYGWIN_PATCHES directory in it.
> > > 
> > > If it doesn't build OOTB then the place to put your patch is in
> > > CYGWIN_PATCHES/ in the src archive, along with a README 
> about what's
> > > needed to recreate the binary package (for folk building custom
> > > versions - i.e. with different configure switches.
> > > 
> > > Once that's answered/corrected, then I'll uplaod for you.
> > > 
> > > As a side note... you might be interested in utilising one 
> > of Chuck's
> > > scripts for the packaging process - grab the source tarball 
> > for nearly
> > > any of his packages, or the src tarball for libxsl (which has 
> > > a script I
> > > customised from Chucks), and a lot of the mechanics can 
> be automated
> > > easily.
> > > 
> > > Rob
> > > 
> > 
> 



RE: whois package

2002-01-10 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Actually, hold that thought.  There's been an update, and it's decently
important... :o(

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Bradshaw 
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:21 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: FW: whois package
> 
> 
> Robert, I think I'm all ready.  I've made the changes you and Gerrit
> suggested.  Small correction to the Makefile in the source to 
> correct the
> prefix.  Slightly expanded readme to explain the patch and 
> how to apply it.
> Patch and readme moved to a CYGWIN-PATCHES directory.  
> 
> I'm ready when you are.
> 
> http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois
> 
> Mark
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:35 AM
> > To: Mark Bradshaw; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: whois package
> > 
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > 
> > > Just wanted to drop in a reminder about the whois 
> package.  Could I
> > get an
> > > official/unofficial nanny to check it over, or at least a 
> > note telling
> > me to
> > > shut up til people have more time?
> > 
> > Looks OK Mark. Does it build OOTB? I ask because the source 
> > archive has
> > no CYGWIN_PATCHES directory in it.
> > 
> > If it doesn't build OOTB then the place to put your patch is in
> > CYGWIN_PATCHES/ in the src archive, along with a README about what's
> > needed to recreate the binary package (for folk building custom
> > versions - i.e. with different configure switches.
> > 
> > Once that's answered/corrected, then I'll uplaod for you.
> > 
> > As a side note... you might be interested in utilising one 
> of Chuck's
> > scripts for the packaging process - grab the source tarball 
> for nearly
> > any of his packages, or the src tarball for libxsl (which has 
> > a script I
> > customised from Chucks), and a lot of the mechanics can be automated
> > easily.
> > 
> > Rob
> > 
> 



FW: whois package

2002-01-10 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Robert, I think I'm all ready.  I've made the changes you and Gerrit
suggested.  Small correction to the Makefile in the source to correct the
prefix.  Slightly expanded readme to explain the patch and how to apply it.
Patch and readme moved to a CYGWIN-PATCHES directory.  

I'm ready when you are.

http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:35 AM
> To: Mark Bradshaw; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > Just wanted to drop in a reminder about the whois package.  Could I
> get an
> > official/unofficial nanny to check it over, or at least a 
> note telling
> me to
> > shut up til people have more time?
> 
> Looks OK Mark. Does it build OOTB? I ask because the source 
> archive has
> no CYGWIN_PATCHES directory in it.
> 
> If it doesn't build OOTB then the place to put your patch is in
> CYGWIN_PATCHES/ in the src archive, along with a README about what's
> needed to recreate the binary package (for folk building custom
> versions - i.e. with different configure switches.
> 
> Once that's answered/corrected, then I'll uplaod for you.
> 
> As a side note... you might be interested in utilising one of Chuck's
> scripts for the packaging process - grab the source tarball for nearly
> any of his packages, or the src tarball for libxsl (which has 
> a script I
> customised from Chucks), and a lot of the mechanics can be automated
> easily.
> 
> Rob
> 



FW: whois package

2002-01-09 Thread Mark Bradshaw

It built OOTB.  I remove some source for an alternate mkpasswd app the
author had included.  It wasn't needed for whois functionality.  I didn't
really consider that patching the app.  Other than that, the only
modifications that I made were to the Makefile to get things pointing in the
right direction.  

I know the readme isn't that informative, but there just wasn't that much to
tell.  The author gave no instructions on the usage for whois, so I didn't
bother either. 

The revert patch puts things back together, including the mkpasswd source.
It didn't seem like it really applied to whois though, so I didn't mention
it in the readme.  If that bugs you I'll change it.  Again, I didn't change
ANY whois source.  Oh, now that I think about it I did make one small change
to some ancillary perl apps that help during the build process.  It was a
one-liner that is so trivial I doubt anyone'd care, but kept them from
causing problems under some conditions.  In any case, they're in the revert
patch.

Considering the small changes I made, I don't think it'd be necessary to
split out another directory for cygwin patches.  But, you're the pro.  If
you still think I should make the changes let me know.

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:42 AM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> Hallo Mark,
> 
> Am 2002-01-09 um 05:24 schriebst du:
> 
> > Just wanted to drop in a reminder about the whois package.  Could I
> > get an official/unofficial nanny to check it over, or at 
> least a note
> > telling me to shut up til people have more time?
> 
> > http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois
> 
> I tried the executable, it seems to work well.
> It is stripped now;)
> 
> The Cygwin specific README is in the source package.
> 
> Though, I prefer some more specific infos in the README,
> so it isn't absolutely correct as you stated in the Cygwin
> README, that you changed nothing than the prefix in the 
> makefile, there is this patch which, applied would put the 
> sources back to their original form.
> 
> Or isn't the patch part of your port to Cygwin?
> 
> Usual, or what is used often, is a seperate directory for
> platform specific files like there is this debian directory, 
> on Cygwin there is often used a seperate directory too, named 
> `CYGWIN-PATCHES'.
> 
> 
> Gerrit
> -- 
> =^..^=
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



RE: whois package

2002-01-08 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Just wanted to drop in a reminder about the whois package.  Could I get an
official/unofficial nanny to check it over, or at least a note telling me to
shut up til people have more time?

http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois

Mark



RE: whois package

2002-01-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Fixed.  I'm not sure how the cygwin readme in the source package is supposed
to be named/located.  I just dropped it in there.

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:16 PM
> To: Christopher Faylor
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> Hallo Christopher,
> 
> Am 2002-01-05 um 00:09 schriebst du:
> 
> >>sdesc: "GNU Whois"
> >>ldesc: "A client for the whois directory service.  It 
> allows you to retrieve
> >>information on domain names, IP addresses, and more."
> >>category: Net
> >>requires: cygwin
> 
> > Didn't even notice the typo.
> 
> > FWIW, this gets my vote.
> 
> It is not stripped:
> ===
> $ ll
> total 46
> -rwxr-xr-x1 Siebensc Administ46642 Dec 13 21:42 whois.exe*
> 
> $ strip *
> 
> $ ll
> total 24
> -rwxr-xr-x1 Siebensc Administ24576 Jan  5 02:03 whois.exe*
> 
> The Cygwin Readme isn't included in the source package:
> ===
> $ ls whois-4.5.15-1/
> Makefile as_del_list  ip_del_listpo/  
>whois.1
> Makefile.am  config.h make_as_del.pl*test-whois.pl*   
>whois.c
> README   data.h   make_ip_del.pl*tld_serv_list
>whois.h
> TODO debian/  make_tld_serv.pl*  
> whois-4.5.15.patch  whois.spec
> 
> 
> Besides these LITTLE issues I vote pro;)
> 
> 
> Gerrit
> -- 
> =^..^=
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



RE: whois package

2002-01-04 Thread Mark Bradshaw

small type correction:

sdesc: "GNU Whois"
ldesc: "A client for the whois directory service.  It allows you to retrieve
information on domain names, IP addresses, and more."
category: Net
requires: cygwin

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Bradshaw 
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:20 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: whois package
> 
> 
> picky, picky. :o)
> 
> sdesc: "GNU Whois"
> ldesc: "A client for the whois directory service.  It allows 
> you to retrieve
> information on domains name, IP addresses, and more."
> category: Net
> requires: cygwin
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:17 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: whois package
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:47:23PM -0500, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> > >I finally got around to putting together the whois package I 
> > talked about
> > >back in December.  If whoever handles new packages could 
> > take a look at it
> > >and check it out I'd appreciate it.  
> > >
> > >Files are at:
> > >http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/setup.hint
> > 
> > BZTT.
> > 
> > *Post* the setup.hint file.
> > 
> > cgf
> > 
> 



RE: whois package

2002-01-04 Thread Mark Bradshaw

picky, picky. :o)

sdesc: "GNU Whois"
ldesc: "A client for the whois directory service.  It allows you to retrieve
information on domains name, IP addresses, and more."
category: Net
requires: cygwin

> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:47:23PM -0500, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> >I finally got around to putting together the whois package I 
> talked about
> >back in December.  If whoever handles new packages could 
> take a look at it
> >and check it out I'd appreciate it.  
> >
> >Files are at:
> >http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/setup.hint
> 
> BZTT.
> 
> *Post* the setup.hint file.
> 
> cgf
> 



whois package

2002-01-04 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I finally got around to putting together the whois package I talked about
back in December.  If whoever handles new packages could take a look at it
and check it out I'd appreciate it.  

Files are at:
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/setup.hint
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.5.15-1-src.tar.bz2
http://www.networksimplicity.com/whois/whois-4.5.15-1.tar.bz2

Mark



RE: whois package

2001-12-10 Thread Mark Bradshaw

K.  I'm gonna hit the author with some questions, then see what damage I can
do...

> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 4:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:47:59PM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> >>  From: Mark Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>  Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:22:40 -0500
> >>  
> >>  I got a couple of notes last week from Chris and Jonathan 
> Kamens suggesting
> >>  bw-whois as the package of choice, but no pro or con list.
> >
> >Well, I gave you some pros and cons, but they focused on meta-issues
> >rather than on the actual functionality of the two packages.  I
> >personally think it's easier to maintain a Perl script than 
> a compiled
> >program, and I don't consider the ability to run in a "stripped down
> >cygwin" is terribly important, but I can see that other people might,
> >which is why I dropped the argument :-).
> >
> >I doubt the functionality of bw-whois is so different from the GNU
> >package you mentioned that it makes much of a difference 
> which one you
> >choose.  So if you're willing to do the work, and you'd rather
> >maintain the GNU version, I think you should go for it.
> 
> That's a 100% ditto from me.
> 
> cgf
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-10 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I got a couple of notes last week from Chris and Jonathan Kamens suggesting
bw-whois as the package of choice, but no pro or con list.  I basically
assumed that a compiled version would be more generally preferred, since it
would be easier to use in stripped down installations of cygwin (not having
any perl baggage).  Does anyone know if there's any particular cool feature
that bw-whois supports that the GNU whois package at
http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/whois.html does not?  I don't really
see any significant difference, but if I'm gonna maintain a package I'd
sorta like to maintain the right thing.

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Bradshaw 
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:29 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: whois package
> 
> 
> Can you give a quickie pro/con list for the bw.org version?
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:27 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: whois package
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> > >> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:55:02 +0100
> > >>From: "Gerrit P.  Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>
> > >>Which whois do you want to maintain?
> > >>http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/jwhois.html
> > >>http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/whois.html
> > >
> > >Don't forget bw-whois, which is my favorite: http://whois.bw.org/
> > 
> > I agree!  I was going to suggest this too.  This is my 
> > favorite by far.
> > 
> > I've installed this on every machine that I maintain.
> > 
> > cgf
> > 
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Looking back into the archives it seems that Robert thought the way to go
would be a stub resolver.  Still think that way, Robert, and are you still
willing to help someone make it?

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Bradshaw 
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:33 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: whois package
> 
> 
> ok.  Next question.  Can we shamelessly steal code from bind 
> for inclusion
> in cygwin?  I'm not familiar with its licensing, but the 
> copyright notice
> looks like it gives full permission to use their code as we 
> see fit.  Can I
> get an amen from someone who knows what they're talking about here?
> 
> And the next question, would we want to go that route?
> 
> Mark
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:14 PM
> > To: Mark Bradshaw
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: whois package
> > 
> > 
> > Hallo Mark,
> > 
> > 2001-12-07 18:05:12, du schriebst:
> > 
> > > Going back to dig and host, I'm guessing that the 
> > maintainer would need to
> > > actually be a maintainer for the whole bind package?  Am I 
> > right in assuming
> > > that having bind as a cygwin package would provide 
> > libresolv functionality,
> > > or would more be required.
> > 
> > No just the resolver is needed to build the tools, I can 
> > query every NS so the
> > named isn't required and I think my 'native' Windows DNS 
> > Server is much faster.
> > 
> > > BTW, I can get bind 9.2 to compile with some modification
> > 
> > Great.  But there are some problems here.
> > If bind installs in /usr there are some files which collide, 
> > netdb.h, sys/cdefs.h,
> > arpa/inet.h.
> > A possibility to resolve this would be a split into runtime 
> > and devel version,
> > or the headers needs to be merged which is the better choice IMO.
> > 
> > On the other hand, the best would be to have a libresolv 
> > included with the C lib
> > or resolver functions in cygwin itself so bind isn't needed.
> > 
> > Gerrit
> > -- 
> > convey Information Systems GmbH   
> > http://www.convey.de/
> >   
> > Vitalisstraße 326-328
> > Gerrit P. Haase   D-50933 Köln
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]Fon: ++49 
> > 221 6903922
> > 
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

ok.  Next question.  Can we shamelessly steal code from bind for inclusion
in cygwin?  I'm not familiar with its licensing, but the copyright notice
looks like it gives full permission to use their code as we see fit.  Can I
get an amen from someone who knows what they're talking about here?

And the next question, would we want to go that route?

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:14 PM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> Hallo Mark,
> 
> 2001-12-07 18:05:12, du schriebst:
> 
> > Going back to dig and host, I'm guessing that the 
> maintainer would need to
> > actually be a maintainer for the whole bind package?  Am I 
> right in assuming
> > that having bind as a cygwin package would provide 
> libresolv functionality,
> > or would more be required.
> 
> No just the resolver is needed to build the tools, I can 
> query every NS so the
> named isn't required and I think my 'native' Windows DNS 
> Server is much faster.
> 
> > BTW, I can get bind 9.2 to compile with some modification
> 
> Great.  But there are some problems here.
> If bind installs in /usr there are some files which collide, 
> netdb.h, sys/cdefs.h,
> arpa/inet.h.
> A possibility to resolve this would be a split into runtime 
> and devel version,
> or the headers needs to be merged which is the better choice IMO.
> 
> On the other hand, the best would be to have a libresolv 
> included with the C lib
> or resolver functions in cygwin itself so bind isn't needed.
> 
> Gerrit
> -- 
> convey Information Systems GmbH   
> http://www.convey.de/
>   
> Vitalisstraße 326-328
> Gerrit P. Haase   D-50933 Köln
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]Fon: ++49 
> 221 6903922
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Going back to dig and host, I'm guessing that the maintainer would need to
actually be a maintainer for the whole bind package?  Am I right in assuming
that having bind as a cygwin package would provide libresolv functionality,
or would more be required.

BTW, I can get bind 9.2 to compile with some modification

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:55 AM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> Hallo Mark,
> 
> 2001-12-07 09:31:41, du schriebst:
> 
> > I would be interested in being a package maintainer for GNU 
> whois (and maybe
> > dig and host down the road).  Any interest in such?
> 
> Yes I'm interested;)
> 
> Which whois do you want to maintain?
> http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/jwhois.html
> http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/whois.html
> 
> And dig and host are from the bind package?
> There are no resolv functions in cygwin, so libresolv or 
> libbind is needed too,
> will you maintain that too?
> 
> Gerrit
> -- 
> convey Information Systems GmbH   
> http://www.convey.de/
>   
> Vitalisstraße 326-328
> Gerrit P. Haase   D-50933 Köln
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]Fon: ++49 
> 221 6903922
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Can you give a quickie pro/con list for the bw.org version?

> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:55:02 +0100
> >>From: "Gerrit P.  Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>Which whois do you want to maintain?
> >>http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/jwhois.html
> >>http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/whois.html
> >
> >Don't forget bw-whois, which is my favorite: http://whois.bw.org/
> 
> I agree!  I was going to suggest this too.  This is my 
> favorite by far.
> 
> I've installed this on every machine that I maintain.
> 
> cgf
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

No reliance on perl.  Easier to use on stripped down cygwin installations.
I'd think that would be a benefit in the long run.  I like perl, but I'd
think the compiled version would be preferred.

I also thought the mkpasswd inclusion was odd.  I just ripped it out of the
source and said bye-bye.

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Kamens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> >  From: Mark Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >  Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:04:27 -0500 
> >  
> >  Just took a look at the bw.org version and realised that 
> it's perl based.
> >  I'd really rather support one that can be compiled.
> 
> Why?
> 
>   jik
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Just took a look at the bw.org version and realised that it's perl based.
I'd really rather support one that can be compiled.  Without significant
reason otherwise, I'll stick with the gnu package.

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:23 AM
> To: Jonathan Kamens
> Cc: Mark Bradshaw; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> Hallo Jonathan,
> 
> 2001-12-07 16:22:05, du schriebst:
> 
> >>  Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:55:02 +0100
> >>  From: "Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>  
> >>  Which whois do you want to maintain?
> >>  http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/jwhois.html
> >>  http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/whois.html
> 
> > Don't forget bw-whois, which is my favorite: http://whois.bw.org/
> 
> Yes, great, I didn't know this, I just looked at gnu.org and found
> the other two.
> 
> Gerrit
> -- 
> convey Information Systems GmbH   
> http://www.convey.de/
>   
> Vitalisstraße 326-328
> Gerrit P. Haase   D-50933 Köln
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]Fon: ++49 
> 221 6903922
> 



RE: whois package

2001-12-07 Thread Mark Bradshaw

Sorry.  I should've identified the package in the original email.  The one I
had planned on supporting was 
http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/whois.html.  It's always seemed to
work well for me.  I wasn't aware the bw.org version, though.  Any good
reason to pick that one versus the gnu package?

Mark

> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:23 AM
> To: Jonathan Kamens
> Cc: Mark Bradshaw; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: whois package
> 
> 
> Hallo Jonathan,
> 
> 2001-12-07 16:22:05, du schriebst:
> 
> >>  Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:55:02 +0100
> >>  From: "Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>  
> >>  Which whois do you want to maintain?
> >>  http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/jwhois.html
> >>  http://www.gnu.org/gnulist/production/whois.html
> 
> > Don't forget bw-whois, which is my favorite: http://whois.bw.org/
> 
> Yes, great, I didn't know this, I just looked at gnu.org and found
> the other two.
> 
> Gerrit
> -- 
> convey Information Systems GmbH   
> http://www.convey.de/
>   
> Vitalisstraße 326-328
> Gerrit P. Haase   D-50933 Köln
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]Fon: ++49 
> 221 6903922
> 



whois package

2001-12-06 Thread Mark Bradshaw

I would be interested in being a package maintainer for GNU whois (and maybe
dig and host down the road).  Any interest in such?

Mark