Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 ignore me if you don't want to reopen this discussion. Pavel Tsekov wrote: Hello, Max Just to let you know that I do not want to ignore your opinion, nor do I want to ignore any other peoples' opinion. I just do not have strong opinion on this topic. So, as far as I'm concerned I'm trying to follow the instructions at http://cygwin.com/setup.html. If as a result of a discussion on this list this instructions do change, I'll follow the new instructions whatever they are. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you or anyone else might treat my opinions unfairly. Quite the opposite in fact - that it would be fair to say that it's my fault for not paying sufficient attention to the discussion last month. I do feel that assigning individual version numbers to each change in the pre-release package would allow better cross-referencing of feedback during review, and that there is no need to reset the release number to 1 when released to the mirrors. I must agree, though, that this is not an issue of high importance. Max.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package version number when releasing an updated version in the process of reviewing.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? 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 number during reviewing? Max.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 number during reviewing? Please, consult the last discussion about that. My memory is incorrect. Sorry. 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 ignore me if you don't want to reopen this discussion. Max.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 ignore me if you don't want to reopen this discussion. Hello, Max Just to let you know that I do not want to ignore your opinion, nor do I want to ignore any other peoples' opinion. I just do not have strong opinion on this topic. So, as far as I'm concerned I'm trying to follow the instructions at http://cygwin.com/setup.html. If as a result of a discussion on this list this instructions do change, I'll follow the new instructions whatever they are.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 version of Ghostscript. -- Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.helixdigital.com
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
- 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). Updated files are here: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package version number when releasing an updated version in the process of reviewing. My mistake, both the above points are fixed now. The new binary package looks like: usr/ usr/man/ usr/man/man1/ usr/man/man1/nasm.1 usr/man/man1/ndisasm.1 usr/info/ usr/info/nasm.info usr/info/nasm.info-1 usr/info/nasm.info-10 usr/info/nasm.info-11 usr/info/nasm.info-12 usr/info/nasm.info-13 usr/info/nasm.info-14 usr/info/nasm.info-2 usr/info/nasm.info-3 usr/info/nasm.info-4 usr/info/nasm.info-5 usr/info/nasm.info-6 usr/info/nasm.info-7 usr/info/nasm.info-8 usr/info/nasm.info-9 usr/bin/ usr/bin/rdf2com.exe usr/bin/nasm.exe usr/bin/ndisasm.exe usr/bin/rdfdump.exe usr/bin/ldrdf.exe usr/bin/rdx.exe usr/bin/rdflib.exe usr/bin/rdf2bin.exe usr/bin/rdf2ihx.exe usr/doc/ usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/ usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/ usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdo10.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc0.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc1.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc2.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc3.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc4.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc5.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc6.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc7.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc8.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc9.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoca.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdocb.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoci.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/nasmdoc.ps usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/nasmdoc.txt usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/AUTHORS usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/CHANGES usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/INSTALL usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/COPYING usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/README usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/TODO usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/ChangeLog usr/doc/Cygwin/ usr/doc/Cygwin/nasm-0.98.35.README Updated files are at: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-1.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-1-src.tar.bz2 Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 I said before. It may actually be a problem with the .ps that was generated. I have no experience with either format, but here's the error message from ps2pdf: $ ps2pdf -dOptimize=true nasmdoc.ps nasmdoc.pdf Error: /undefined in setpagesize Operand stack: Execution stack: %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval- - 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- fa lse 1 %stopped_push 1 3 %oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop .runexec 2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push -- nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- Dictionary stack: --dict:1085/1123(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:111/200(L)-- Current allocation mode is local Current file position is 52386 GNU Ghostscript 7.05: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 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. I'm sorry for assuming this was a problem with ghostscript if it isn't. If you or anyone knows the source of this problem, I'd be happy to know. Otherwise, I'm quite happy to leave the pdf out - it would double the size of the binary package, and its not a format that is particularly useful (imho) in cygwin when there's html as well. Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 on your Debian system with the one produced on Cygwin. If both Postscript files are exactly the same, then I'd say that there's a problem with Ghostscript. -- Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.helixdigital.com
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
- 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 : 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 for nasm and ndisasm. 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 will make the package complete. 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 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages 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 the documentation, which would keep the smaller binary download for people that do not need the docs. I agree that both the man and info docs should be available in the binary distribution. As for the additional (pdf, ps, html) documentation, I'm open to suggestion. The extra docs are certainly very comprehensive, although I don't often consult them. I also notice that the nasm project provides a separate nasm-0.98.35-xdoc package. In any case, I'll repackage the existing package to make everything and make install_everything, I'll post an update soon. Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
[nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
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 for nasm and ndisasm. 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 will make the package complete. P.S. Yes, I know there are instructions on how to build the documentation in the Cygwin specific readme file, but this means that the user has to download the source package and build the docu by himself.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
--- 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 will make the package complete. Making docs available is a good idea. I personally like info and HTML best. An alternative would be to have a separate nasm-doc package with all the documentation, which would keep the smaller binary download for people that do not need the docs. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
