Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-09 Thread Christopher Faylor 
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:42:09PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>linda w (cyg) wrote:
>>> Thus skipping it would be a bad habit to get into.
>>> 
>> On the other hand, using it and having it hang isn't exceptionally
>> useful.  Maybe that behavior will get sorted out down the line as
>> well ((hope), since don't know why it hangs...unresponsive to ctl-c).
>
>Huh??? *What* hangs?

Oh, good.  It isn't just me.  I thought I'd missed something somewhere.

cgf

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-09 Thread Max Bowsher 
linda w (cyg) wrote:
>> Thus skipping it would be a bad habit to get into.
>> 
>> Rob
> ---
> On the other hand, using it and having it hang isn't exceptionally
> useful.  Maybe that behavior will get sorted out down the line as
> well ((hope), since don't know why it hangs...unresponsive to ctl-c).

Huh??? *What* hangs?

Max.

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-09 Thread linda w \(cyg\) 
>
> Thus skipping it would be a bad habit to get into.
>
> Rob
---
On the other hand, using it and having it hang isn't exceptionally
useful.  Maybe that behavior will get sorted out down the line as
well ((hope), since don't know why it hangs...unresponsive to ctl-c).

Linda

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-09 Thread Max Bowsher 
>> Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>>> Yes. Right. Obviously if linda have followed the recent threads she
>>> could avoid build problems. There is no need to rehash the long
>>> discussion each time someone decides to compile setup.

> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Rehash? Recent? Maybe I'm just forgetful, but I don't remember a long
>> discussion. Certainly not recently.

Pavel Tsekov wrote:
(gcc-2) > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00313.html
(bison) > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00162.html
>
> There are maybe others.. the bison problem was discussed on both
> cygwin & cygwin-apps.

Yes, but she didn't ask about the bison problem, and my gcc-2 message you
mention above didn't exactly go into much detail - even *if* someone found
it and read it completely, I can understand them not linking it to the
compile errors caused.

>> I *will* continue to help those who ask good questions about setup.
>
> Do as you please. I don't see what was so good it that specific
> question. It seem more that it was just an excercise.

You are right - the question wasn't specifically good. But it did provide
sufficient, relevant, information that I could work out the problem in ~1
second.

> I think that the the ones who want to build setup or any other
> software are supposed to have some knowledge how to deal with
> problems which may arise at build time.

True - but a little pointer in the right direction never hurts.

Max.

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-09 Thread Pavel Tsekov 
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:

> >> Neither will work.
> >> 2.249.2.5 won't compile with gcc3, or with gcc2 from a gcc2 package.
> >> It only works with the ancient gcc2 packaged as gcc.
> >
> > Yes. Right. Obviously if linda have followed the recent threads she
> > could avoid build problems. There is no need to rehash the long
> > discussion each time someone decides to compile setup.
> 
> Rehash? Recent? Maybe I'm just forgetful, but I don't remember a long
> discussion. Certainly not recently.

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00313.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00162.html

There are maybe others.. the bison problem was discussed on both
cygwin & cygwin-apps.

> I *will* continue to help those who ask good questions about setup.

Do as you please. I don't see what was so good it that specific question.
It seem more that it was just an excercise.

I think that the the ones who want to build setup or any other software 
are supposed to have some knowledge how to deal with problems which may arise 
at build time.

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-09 Thread Robert Collins 
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 22:12, Max Bowsher wrote:
> linda w (cyg) wrote:
> > I tried it with eliminating the argument...seems to run...
> > Now I'm worried...why'd it work?cause I happen to have all
> > the right libraries in place and a generic new-user wouldn't
> > have them?
> 
> No, because that option, in this specific case, is a no-op.

Ermm, it's not.

> --disable-shared is a directive to libtool.
> bz2lib and zlib don't use libtool.

True.

> libgetopt++ does use libtool, but doesn't use the -no-undefined option, so
> libtool doesn't build shared on Windows anyway.

For quite some time, .dll's built with libtool on cygwin without
-no-undefined. It's been reintroduced (and I think thats a mistake, but
that's another story - I've not had time to research the interactions
there).

libgetopt++ *definately* operates as a .dll, and when I get around to
adjusting it to current libtool behaviour the --disable-shared will be
*required*. 

Thus skipping it would be a bad habit to get into.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-09 Thread Max Bowsher 
linda w (cyg) wrote:
> I tried it with eliminating the argument...seems to run...
> Now I'm worried...why'd it work?cause I happen to have all
> the right libraries in place and a generic new-user wouldn't
> have them?

No, because that option, in this specific case, is a no-op.

--disable-shared is a directive to libtool.
bz2lib and zlib don't use libtool.
libgetopt++ does use libtool, but doesn't use the -no-undefined option, so
libtool doesn't build shared on Windows anyway.


Max.

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Robert McNulty Junior 
Linda, reconfigure your program and include --disable-shared in with it
/path/to/setupsources/configure --disable-shared.
I was not sure if you'd respond.
I'm going to try this after the hard drive is defragmented here.
Later
Robert McNulty Junior.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of linda w (cyg)
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 11:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: when is next release of setup.exe


Oh...*doh*...how'd I cut and paste that wrong?

I tried it with eliminating the argument...seems to run...
Now I'm worried...why'd it work?cause I happen to havea ll
the write libraries in place and a generic new-user wouldn't
have them?

ok...
tnx...
-l


> -Original Message-
> From: Robert McNulty Junior [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat, Mar 08, 2003 8:58p
> To: linda w (cyg); 'Max Bowsher'; 'Igor Pechtchanski'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: when is next release of setup.exe
>
>
> Try --disable-shared
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of linda w (cyg)
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 9:59 PM
> To: 'Max Bowsher'; 'Igor Pechtchanski'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: when is next release of setup.exe
>
>
> Igor helpfully said:
> The CVS version is trivial to compile - just follow the
> instructions at
> <http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html>.
>   Igor
> ---
>   Ever had someone give you directions and tell you "you can't
> miss it"?...:-)
>
>
> Then max chimed in with some more details...
> > cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/cygwin-apps co setup
> > cd setup/libgetopt++
> > ./bootstrap.sh
> > cd ..
> > mkdir .obj
> > cd .obj
> > ../configure -C --enable-dependencies --disable-shared \
> > --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc -mno-cygwin' \
> > 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
> > make
> 
>   Then linda tried it...*splat*...linda gets squished
> a squished bit by an unknown option.
>
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> mkdir .obj
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> ls libgetopt++/
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd libgetopt++/
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> ./bootstrap.sh
> Autotool bootstrapping complete.
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> cd ..
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd .obj
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/.obj>
> ../configure -C --enable-dependencies
> --disabled-shared --host=i686-pc-mingw32
> --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc
> -mno-cygwin' 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
> configure: error: unrecognized option: --disabled-shared
> Try `../configure --help' for more information.
>
> 
>
> Looked easy enough... the --help says it *should* work...
> ???
> -l
>
>
>
>
>

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread linda w \(cyg\) 
Oh...*doh*...how'd I cut and paste that wrong?

I tried it with eliminating the argument...seems to run...
Now I'm worried...why'd it work?cause I happen to havea ll
the write libraries in place and a generic new-user wouldn't
have them?

ok...
tnx...
-l


> -Original Message-
> From: Robert McNulty Junior [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat, Mar 08, 2003 8:58p
> To: linda w (cyg); 'Max Bowsher'; 'Igor Pechtchanski'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: when is next release of setup.exe
>
>
> Try --disable-shared
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of linda w (cyg)
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 9:59 PM
> To: 'Max Bowsher'; 'Igor Pechtchanski'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: when is next release of setup.exe
>
>
> Igor helpfully said:
> The CVS version is trivial to compile - just follow the
> instructions at
> <http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html>.
>   Igor
> ---
>   Ever had someone give you directions and tell you "you can't
> miss it"?...:-)
>
>
> Then max chimed in with some more details...
> > cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/cygwin-apps co setup
> > cd setup/libgetopt++
> > ./bootstrap.sh
> > cd ..
> > mkdir .obj
> > cd .obj
> > ../configure -C --enable-dependencies --disable-shared \
> > --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc -mno-cygwin' \
> > 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
> > make
> 
>   Then linda tried it...*splat*...linda gets squished
> a squished bit by an unknown option.
>
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> mkdir .obj
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> ls libgetopt++/
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd libgetopt++/
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> ./bootstrap.sh
> Autotool bootstrapping complete.
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> cd ..
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd .obj
> //ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/.obj>
> ../configure -C --enable-dependencies
> --disabled-shared --host=i686-pc-mingw32
> --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc
> -mno-cygwin' 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
> configure: error: unrecognized option: --disabled-shared
> Try `../configure --help' for more information.
>
> 
>
> Looked easy enough... the --help says it *should* work...
> ???
> -l
>
>
>
>
>

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Robert McNulty Junior 
Try --disable-shared

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of linda w (cyg)
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 9:59 PM
To: 'Max Bowsher'; 'Igor Pechtchanski'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: when is next release of setup.exe


Igor helpfully said:
The CVS version is trivial to compile - just follow the instructions at
<http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html>.
Igor
---
Ever had someone give you directions and tell you "you can't
miss it"?...:-)


Then max chimed in with some more details...
> cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/cygwin-apps co setup
> cd setup/libgetopt++
> ./bootstrap.sh
> cd ..
> mkdir .obj
> cd .obj
> ../configure -C --enable-dependencies --disable-shared \
> --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc -mno-cygwin' \
> 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
> make

Then linda tried it...*splat*...linda gets squished
a squished bit by an unknown option.

//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> mkdir .obj
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> ls libgetopt++/
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd libgetopt++/
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> ./bootstrap.sh
Autotool bootstrapping complete.
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> cd ..
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd .obj
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/.obj>
../configure -C --enable-dependencies
--disabled-shared --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc
-mno-cygwin' 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
configure: error: unrecognized option: --disabled-shared
Try `../configure --help' for more information.



Looked easy enough... the --help says it *should* work...
???
-l

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread linda w \(cyg\) 
Igor helpfully said:
The CVS version is trivial to compile - just follow the instructions at
.
Igor
---
Ever had someone give you directions and tell you "you can't
miss it"?...:-)


Then max chimed in with some more details...
> cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/cygwin-apps co setup
> cd setup/libgetopt++
> ./bootstrap.sh
> cd ..
> mkdir .obj
> cd .obj
> ../configure -C --enable-dependencies --disable-shared \
> --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc -mno-cygwin' \
> 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
> make

Then linda tried it...*splat*...linda gets squished
a squished bit by an unknown option.

//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> mkdir .obj
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> ls libgetopt++/
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd libgetopt++/
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> ./bootstrap.sh
Autotool bootstrapping complete.
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/libgetopt++> cd ..
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup> cd .obj
//ishtar/root/usr/src/cygwin/setup/.obj> ../configure -C --enable-dependencies
--disabled-shared --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc
-mno-cygwin' 'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
configure: error: unrecognized option: --disabled-shared
Try `../configure --help' for more information.



Looked easy enough... the --help says it *should* work...
???
-l

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> That is the right way to do it but since we're discussing this here,
> it's silly to bother overseers.  It's a manual step that I have to do
> so I'll just remove the CVS-only restriction.

Thanks Chris!

Robert: Shall I keep a snapshot of HEAD up-to-date? If so, what policy for
removing old versions?

Max.

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Christopher Faylor 
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 01:04:12AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
 (Robert Collins) wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a symlink in my home dir called setup-snapshots, which is a
>>> link to the actual dir for http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots.
>>>
>>> To make a snapshot, I use:
>>>
>>> make snapshot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> voila.
>>>
>>> So, for you to get snapshot access, ask Chris for
>>> a) scp upload access
>>> b) write access to the setup-snapshots directory.
>>> c) said symlink in your home dir.
>>> (If you have ssh shell access, you have a, and can make c yourself.
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Don't "ask Chris".  Go to http://sourceware.org/ and fill out the form
>> referenced on that page.  List [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
>> approver.
>
>I've filled in the form once for cvs access, and the page is emphatic about
>not filling it in twice.

Ok.  I forgot that you already had ssh access.

>Presumably, then, I need to forward an email from Robert to overseers.

That is the right way to do it but since we're discussing this here,
it's silly to bother overseers.  It's a manual step that I have to do so
I'll just remove the CVS-only restriction.

cgf

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
>>> (Robert Collins) wrote:
>>
>> I have a symlink in my home dir called setup-snapshots, which is a
>> link to the actual dir for http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots.
>>
>> To make a snapshot, I use:
>>
>> make snapshot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> voila.
>>
>> So, for you to get snapshot access, ask Chris for
>> a) scp upload access
>> b) write access to the setup-snapshots directory.
>> c) said symlink in your home dir.
>> (If you have ssh shell access, you have a, and can make c yourself.

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Don't "ask Chris".  Go to http://sourceware.org/ and fill out the form
> referenced on that page.  List [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
> approver.

I've filled in the form once for cvs access, and the page is emphatic about
not filling it in twice. Presumably, then, I need to forward an email from
Robert to overseers.

Now, since I *don't* have shell access, and I don't know whether scp-only
access exists, I need to know whether you are approving me for scp access,
and I should ask for a suitable symlink to be created for me, or for shell
access.

Max.

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Christopher Faylor 
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:13:43AM +1100, Cygwin (Robert Collins) wrote:
>
>===
>- Original Message -
>From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Cygwin (Robert Collins)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:56 AM
>Subject: Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release
>of setup.exe)
>
>
>> Cygwin (Robert Collins) wrote:
>> > I'd really have loved to have a new setup
>> > release, oh, 8 months back. And that would compile out of the box
>with
>> > the current gcc. However whats released has been very stable, and
>the
>> > time to finish releasing HEAD keeps getting away from us. HEAD has
>> > lots of incremental improvements - it's the only version I use :}.
>>
>> How about doing a setup-200206 snapshot?
>> I think it's ready, and we really should get that ntsec fix out there.
>>
>> If you are busy, {how do,should} I apply for snapshot upload access?
>
>Ok, snapshots work thusly:
>
>I have a symlink in my home dir called setup-snapshots, which is a link
>to the actual dir for http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots.
>
>To make a snapshot, I use:
>
>make snapshot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>voila.
>
>So, for you to get snapshot access, ask Chris for
>a) scp upload access
>b) write access to the setup-snapshots directory.

Don't "ask Chris".  Go to http://sourceware.org/ and fill out the form
referenced on that page.  List [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the approver.

cgf

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Cygwin \(Robert Collins\) 

===
- Original Message -
From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Cygwin (Robert Collins)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release
of setup.exe)


> Cygwin (Robert Collins) wrote:
> > I'd really have loved to have a new setup
> > release, oh, 8 months back. And that would compile out of the box
with
> > the current gcc. However whats released has been very stable, and
the
> > time to finish releasing HEAD keeps getting away from us. HEAD has
> > lots of incremental improvements - it's the only version I use :}.
>
> How about doing a setup-200206 snapshot?
> I think it's ready, and we really should get that ntsec fix out there.
>
> If you are busy, {how do,should} I apply for snapshot upload access?

Ok, snapshots work thusly:

I have a symlink in my home dir called setup-snapshots, which is a link
to the actual dir for http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots.

To make a snapshot, I use:

make snapshot [EMAIL PROTECTED]

voila.

So, for you to get snapshot access, ask Chris for
a) scp upload access
b) write access to the setup-snapshots directory.
c) said symlink in your home dir.
(If you have ssh shell access, you have a, and can make c yourself.

I'm happy for you to have setup-snapshot upload access.

Cheers,
Rob

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Cygwin \(Robert Collins\) 

===
- Original Message -
From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Cygwin (Robert Collins)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release
of setup.exe)


> Cygwin (Robert Collins) wrote:
> > I'd really have loved to have a new setup
> > release, oh, 8 months back. And that would compile out of the box
with
> > the current gcc. However whats released has been very stable, and
the
> > time to finish releasing HEAD keeps getting away from us. HEAD has
> > lots of incremental improvements - it's the only version I use :}.
>
> How about doing a setup-200206 snapshot?
> I think it's ready, and we really should get that ntsec fix out there.
>
> If you are busy, {how do,should} I apply for snapshot upload access?

I am building one at the moment.

Rob

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
Cygwin (Robert Collins) wrote:
> I'd really have loved to have a new setup
> release, oh, 8 months back. And that would compile out of the box with
> the current gcc. However whats released has been very stable, and the
> time to finish releasing HEAD keeps getting away from us. HEAD has
> lots of incremental improvements - it's the only version I use :}.

How about doing a setup-200206 snapshot?
I think it's ready, and we really should get that ntsec fix out there.

If you are busy, {how do,should} I apply for snapshot upload access?

Max.

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Cygwin \(Robert Collins\) 

===
- Original Message -
From: "vijay kiran kamuju" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 6:00 PM
Subject: when is next release of setup.exe


> hi,
>
> when is it going to be the next release of the the setup.exe with
> all the CURRENT PATCHES, i need it asap. as for downloading the
> source frm cvs, i dont have vc++, r a cvs client installed at my
> office. so when r u releasing the new version of setup.exe

We have to test the changes we made. I'll be uploading a new *snapshot*
,which allows the blank password that you need, this afternoon.

Rob

Re: He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread Cygwin \(Robert Collins\) 

===
- Original Message -
From: "linda w (cyg)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I didn't know it was in reference to the CVS...I just tried
> current released source for current released setup with current
> released tools -- which I realize (now) was completely naive of
> me. :-/

Naive, yes. Foolish no. I'd really have loved to have a new setup
release, oh, 8 months back. And that would compile out of the box with
the current gcc. However whats released has been very stable, and the
time to finish releasing HEAD keeps getting away from us. HEAD has lots
of incremental improvements - it's the only version I use :}.

> Just slap me up the side of the head for being so silly as
> to expect that to work*sigh*...and I just wanted one thing to be
> simple...just a small thing, really...(very sad pitiful voice)...:-)
> -l

/me slaps linda

Rob

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> linda w (cyg) wrote:
>>> Compiling from a branch?  How did I manage that?
>>
>> The setup source tarball you are using originated from the
>> setup-200206 branch.
>>
>>> I just have 'gcc' downloaded -- If I install the gcc2 package will
>>> the ./configure script just 'do the right thing' and select
>>> the compiler it works with or will it just use 'gcc' and end up
>>> using the current gcc?
>>
>> Neither will work.
>> 2.249.2.5 won't compile with gcc3, or with gcc2 from a gcc2 package.
>> It only works with the ancient gcc2 packaged as gcc.
>
> Yes. Right. Obviously if linda have followed the recent threads she
> could avoid build problems. There is no need to rehash the long
> discussion each time someone decides to compile setup.

Rehash? Recent? Maybe I'm just forgetful, but I don't remember a long
discussion. Certainly not recently.

I *will* continue to help those who ask good questions about setup.

Max.

He wrote, then she wrote, ... (was RE: when is next release of setup.exe)

2003-03-08 Thread linda w \(cyg\) 

> -Nested-context lost Message-
> From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> linda w (cyg) wrote:
> > > From:  Igor Pechtchanski
> > > Cygwin setup compiles fine with Cygwin gcc.
> > ---
> Pardon me, ma'am, but the OP asked about the *current CVS source* of
> setup.  It was in that context (which you so nonchalantly
> snipped) that my  comment was correct...
---
I didn't know it was in reference to the CVS...I just tried
current released source for current released setup with current
released tools -- which I realize (now) was completely naive of
me. :-/

Just slap me up the side of the head for being so silly as
to expect that to work*sigh*...and I just wanted one thing to be
simple...just a small thing, really...(very sad pitiful voice)...:-)
-l

Actually you should kick me out the doorit's in the 70's(F) sunny
here in Santa Cruz...and I'm spending time, Saturday afternoon inside
on my computervery sad...I'm outa here...

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Pavel Tsekov 
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:

> linda w (cyg) wrote:
> > Compiling from a branch?  How did I manage that?
> 
> The setup source tarball you are using originated from the setup-200206
> branch.
> 
> > I just have 'gcc' downloaded -- If I install the gcc2 package will
> > the ./configure script just 'do the right thing' and select
> > the compiler it works with or will it just use 'gcc' and end up
> > using the current gcc?
> 
> Neither will work.
> 2.249.2.5 won't compile with gcc3, or with gcc2 from a gcc2 package. It only
> works with the ancient gcc2 packaged as gcc.

Yes. Right. Obviously if linda have followed the recent threads she could 
avoid build problems. There is no need to rehash the long discussion each 
time someone decides to compile setup.

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Igor Pechtchanski 
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, linda w (cyg) wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From:  Igor Pechtchanski
>
> > Cygwin setup compiles fine with Cygwin gcc.
> ---
> Pardon me, kind sir, but I have a "itty bitty teensie weensie"
> problem with this:
> [make log snipped]
> Twas all so minorly amused by this discussion as I was  just about to
> ask if setup was supposed to be able to be compiled under cygwin.
> I'm  using "setup-2.249.2.5.tar.bz2"
^
Pardon me, ma'am, but the OP asked about the *current CVS source* of
setup.  It was in that context (which you so nonchalantly snipped) that my
comment was correct...

> (*wry smile*)
> -linda

(*same here*)
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
linda w (cyg) wrote:
>> The problem is, way back then when 2.249.2.5 was release, gcc3
>> didn't exist yet. The setup code from then didn't comply strictly
>> enough to C++ standards
> ===
> Heresy!! Not compliant with standards...how could they?!  I'm
> ashamed to be hobnobbin' with such types...ignoring standards...fooey!
> :-| (*str8-face*)
>
>> Probably the easiest option is to abandon 2.249.2.5, and grab
>> the latest
>> source from CVS.
>
> Sigh...mumble, grumble...seems like every product I work with I'm
> always redirected to the CVS tree:-) (just got directed there,
> yesterday,
> when I wanted some XFS-inode analysis script)...
>
> Little solace in having the source if the tools to generate one's
> binary
> from said source aren't around anymore...:-{
>
> I'll have to see if I'm interested enough in doing this to setup
> CVS...

More fun stuff... bison-1.875 is broken. See my reply to Brian Keener
earlier today:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00162.html

After that:

cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/cygwin-apps co setup
cd setup/libgetopt++
./bootstrap.sh
cd ..
mkdir .obj
cd .obj
../configure -C --enable-dependencies --disable-shared \
--host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin 'CC=gcc -mno-cygwin' \
'CXX=g++ -mno-cygwin' --enable-maintainer-mode
make

In case you are wondering, the configure line is from the setup homepage:
http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html

Max.

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Igor Pechtchanski 
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, linda w (cyg) wrote:

> > The problem is, way back then when 2.249.2.5 was release, gcc3 didn't exist
> > yet. The setup code from then didn't comply strictly enough to C++ standards
> ===
> Heresy!! Not compliant with standards...how could they?!  I'm
> ashamed to be hobnobbin' with such types...ignoring standards...fooey!
> :-| (*str8-face*)
>
> > Probably the easiest option is to abandon 2.249.2.5, and grab the
> > latest source from CVS.
>
> Sigh...mumble, grumble...seems like every product I work with I'm always
> redirected to the CVS tree:-) (just got directed there, yesterday,
> when I wanted some XFS-inode analysis script)...

Well, what do you expect?  Tools evolve.  Packaged source does not (at
least, any particular packaged version doesn't).

> Little solace in having the source if the tools to generate one's binary
> from said source aren't around anymore...:-{

There are two reasons to get the source for some package:
a) for reference, in which case you don't care whether it compiles, or
b) for development, in which case you might want to get the latest anyway

> I'll have to see if I'm interested enough in doing this to setup
> CVS...
> Thanks, -linda

The CVS version is trivial to compile - just follow the instructions at
.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Pavel Tsekov 
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, linda w (cyg) wrote:

> Compiling from a branch?  How did I manage that?

I am a mindreader isn't it that what you've expected ?

To answer the question - I didn't read your email till the end because I 
recognized the problem when I looked at the error messages. It is not a 
good idea to put a funny text after the compiler output.

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread linda w \(cyg\) 



> The problem is, way back then when 2.249.2.5 was release, gcc3 didn't exist
> yet. The setup code from then didn't comply strictly enough to C++ standards
===
Heresy!! Not compliant with standards...how could they?!  I'm
ashamed to be hobnobbin' with such types...ignoring standards...fooey!
:-| (*str8-face*)

> Probably the easiest option is to abandon 2.249.2.5, and grab
> the latest
> source from CVS.

Sigh...mumble, grumble...seems like every product I work with I'm always
redirected to the CVS tree:-) (just got directed there, yesterday,
when I wanted some XFS-inode analysis script)...

Little solace in having the source if the tools to generate one's binary
from said source aren't around anymore...:-{

I'll have to see if I'm interested enough in doing this to setup
CVS...

Thanks,
-linda

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
linda w (cyg) wrote:
> Compiling from a branch?  How did I manage that?

The setup source tarball you are using originated from the setup-200206
branch.

> I just have 'gcc' downloaded -- If I install the gcc2 package will
> the ./configure script just 'do the right thing' and select
> the compiler it works with or will it just use 'gcc' and end up
> using the current gcc?

Neither will work.
2.249.2.5 won't compile with gcc3, or with gcc2 from a gcc2 package. It only
works with the ancient gcc2 packaged as gcc.

Max.

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> You've obviously compiling from a branch. Branched setup is not
> gcc3 ready. Install gcc-2 package and use gcc-2 + g++-2 to compile
> setup.exe.

Unfortunately, that won't work either.
2.249.2.5 isn't even "gcc-2" ready.

Max.

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread linda w \(cyg\) 
Compiling from a branch?  How did I manage that?
I just have 'gcc' downloaded -- If I install the gcc2 package will
the ./configure script just 'do the right thing' and select
the compiler it works with or will it just use 'gcc' and end up
using the current gcc?

Did I some how manage to download mismatched headers for the
compiler or something?

-l


> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sat, Mar 08, 2003 1:48p
> To: linda w (cyg)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: when is next release of setup.exe
>
>
> You've obviously compiling from a branch. Branched setup is not
> gcc3 ready. Install gcc-2 package and use gcc-2 + g++-2 to compile
> setup.exe.
>
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, linda w (cyg) wrote:
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From:  Igor Pechtchanski
> >
> > > Cygwin setup compiles fine with Cygwin gcc.
> > ---
> > Pardon me, kind sir, but I have a "itty bitty teensie weensie"
> > problem with this:
> >
> > make  all-recursive
> > make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0'
> > Making all in bz2lib
> > make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/bz2lib'
> > make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/bz2lib'
> > Making all in zlib
> > make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/zlib'
> > make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/zlib'
> > Making all in libgetopt++
> > make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/libgetopt++'
> > source='src/GetOption.cc' object='src/GetOption.lo' libtool=yes \
> > depfile='src/.deps/GetOption.Plo'
> tmpdepfile='src/.deps/GetOption.TPlo' \
> > depmode=gcc3 /bin/bash ./cfgaux/depcomp \
> > /bin/bash ./libtool --mode=compile g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
> -I. -I./include -I./i
> > nclude-g -O2 -c -o src/GetOption.lo `test -f
> 'src/GetOption.cc' || echo './'
> > `src/GetOption.cc
> >  g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./include -I./include -g -O2
> -c src/GetOption.cc
> > -MT src/GetOption.lo -MD -MP -MF src/.deps/GetOption.TPlo
> -DPIC -o src/.libs/Ge
> > tOption.o
> > In file included from include/getopt++/GetOption.h:19,
> >  from src/GetOption.cc:19:
> > include/getopt++/OptionSet.h:31: `ostream' was not declared
> in this scope
> > include/getopt++/OptionSet.h:31: parse error before `)' token
> > In file included from src/GetOption.cc:20:
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:33: ISO C++ forbids declaration
> of `string' with no
> >type
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:33: `string' declared as a `virtual' field
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:33: parse error before `const'
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:35: ISO C++ forbids declaration
> of `string' with no
> >type
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:35: `string' declared as a `virtual' field
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:35: declaration of `int Option::string'
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:33: conflicts with previous
> declaration `int
> >Option::string'
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:35: parse error before `const'
> > include/getopt++/Option.h:35: duplicate member `Option::string'
> > make[2]: *** [src/GetOption.lo] Error 1
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/libgetopt++'
> > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0'
> > make: *** [all] Error 2
> >
> ==
> 
> > Twas all so minorly amused by this discussion as I was
> just about to
> > ask if setup was supposed to be able to be compiled under cygwin.
> > I'm  using "setup-2.249.2.5.tar.bz2"
> >
> > Not that I'm demanding anything, or anything, and not to be
> disagreeable
> > (though I'm often seen that way)...but could you give me any hints
> > as to why I'm unable to compile -- other than "well, you idjiot
> > (inflected form of idiot), it's obvious that you didn't
> declare ostream
> > in the proper scope!"...:-(.  Very sad.
> >
> > (*wry smile*)
> > -linda
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Max Bowsher 
linda w (cyg) wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From:  Igor Pechtchanski
>> Cygwin setup compiles fine with Cygwin gcc.
> ---
> Pardon me, kind sir, but I have a "itty bitty teensie weensie"
> problem with this:
[snip errors]
> ==
> Twas all so minorly amused by this discussion as I was  just about to
> ask if setup was supposed to be able to be compiled under cygwin.
> I'm  using "setup-2.249.2.5.tar.bz2"

The problem is, way back then when 2.249.2.5 was release, gcc3 didn't exist
yet. The setup code from then didn't comply strictly enough to C++ standards
to compile with gcc3. So, gcc-2? No, because the setup code needed some
fixes to work with the -2 suffix on certain things.

Probably the easiest option is to abandon 2.249.2.5, and grab the latest
source from CVS.


Max.

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Pavel Tsekov 
You've obviously compiling from a branch. Branched setup is not 
gcc3 ready. Install gcc-2 package and use gcc-2 + g++-2 to compile 
setup.exe.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, linda w (cyg) wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From:  Igor Pechtchanski
> 
> > Cygwin setup compiles fine with Cygwin gcc.
> ---
>   Pardon me, kind sir, but I have a "itty bitty teensie weensie"
> problem with this:
> 
> make  all-recursive
> make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0'
> Making all in bz2lib
> make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/bz2lib'
> make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/bz2lib'
> Making all in zlib
> make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/zlib'
> make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/zlib'
> Making all in libgetopt++
> make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/libgetopt++'
> source='src/GetOption.cc' object='src/GetOption.lo' libtool=yes \
> depfile='src/.deps/GetOption.Plo' tmpdepfile='src/.deps/GetOption.TPlo' \
> depmode=gcc3 /bin/bash ./cfgaux/depcomp \
> /bin/bash ./libtool --mode=compile g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./include -I./i
> nclude-g -O2 -c -o src/GetOption.lo `test -f 'src/GetOption.cc' || echo './'
> `src/GetOption.cc
>  g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./include -I./include -g -O2 -c src/GetOption.cc
> -MT src/GetOption.lo -MD -MP -MF src/.deps/GetOption.TPlo  -DPIC -o src/.libs/Ge
> tOption.o
> In file included from include/getopt++/GetOption.h:19,
>  from src/GetOption.cc:19:
> include/getopt++/OptionSet.h:31: `ostream' was not declared in this scope
> include/getopt++/OptionSet.h:31: parse error before `)' token
> In file included from src/GetOption.cc:20:
> include/getopt++/Option.h:33: ISO C++ forbids declaration of `string' with no
>type
> include/getopt++/Option.h:33: `string' declared as a `virtual' field
> include/getopt++/Option.h:33: parse error before `const'
> include/getopt++/Option.h:35: ISO C++ forbids declaration of `string' with no
>type
> include/getopt++/Option.h:35: `string' declared as a `virtual' field
> include/getopt++/Option.h:35: declaration of `int Option::string'
> include/getopt++/Option.h:33: conflicts with previous declaration `int
>Option::string'
> include/getopt++/Option.h:35: parse error before `const'
> include/getopt++/Option.h:35: duplicate member `Option::string'
> make[2]: *** [src/GetOption.lo] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/libgetopt++'
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0'
> make: *** [all] Error 2
> ==
> Twas all so minorly amused by this discussion as I was  just about to
> ask if setup was supposed to be able to be compiled under cygwin.
> I'm  using "setup-2.249.2.5.tar.bz2"
> 
> Not that I'm demanding anything, or anything, and not to be disagreeable
> (though I'm often seen that way)...but could you give me any hints
> as to why I'm unable to compile -- other than "well, you idjiot
> (inflected form of idiot), it's obvious that you didn't declare ostream
> in the proper scope!"...:-(.  Very sad.
> 
> (*wry smile*)
> -linda
> 
> 
> 
>

RE: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread linda w \(cyg\) 

> -Original Message-
> From:  Igor Pechtchanski

> Cygwin setup compiles fine with Cygwin gcc.
---
Pardon me, kind sir, but I have a "itty bitty teensie weensie"
problem with this:

make  all-recursive
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0'
Making all in bz2lib
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/bz2lib'
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/bz2lib'
Making all in zlib
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/zlib'
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/zlib'
Making all in libgetopt++
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/setup-0/libgetopt++'
source='src/GetOption.cc' object='src/GetOption.lo' libtool=yes \
depfile='src/.deps/GetOption.Plo' tmpdepfile='src/.deps/GetOption.TPlo' \
depmode=gcc3 /bin/bash ./cfgaux/depcomp \
/bin/bash ./libtool --mode=compile g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./include -I./i
nclude-g -O2 -c -o src/GetOption.lo `test -f 'src/GetOption.cc' || echo './'
`src/GetOption.cc
 g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I./include -I./include -g -O2 -c src/GetOption.cc
-MT src/GetOption.lo -MD -MP -MF src/.deps/GetOption.TPlo  -DPIC -o src/.libs/Ge
tOption.o
In file included from include/getopt++/GetOption.h:19,
 from src/GetOption.cc:19:
include/getopt++/OptionSet.h:31: `ostream' was not declared in this scope
include/getopt++/OptionSet.h:31: parse error before `)' token
In file included from src/GetOption.cc:20:
include/getopt++/Option.h:33: ISO C++ forbids declaration of `string' with no
   type
include/getopt++/Option.h:33: `string' declared as a `virtual' field
include/getopt++/Option.h:33: parse error before `const'
include/getopt++/Option.h:35: ISO C++ forbids declaration of `string' with no
   type
include/getopt++/Option.h:35: `string' declared as a `virtual' field
include/getopt++/Option.h:35: declaration of `int Option::string'
include/getopt++/Option.h:33: conflicts with previous declaration `int
   Option::string'
include/getopt++/Option.h:35: parse error before `const'
include/getopt++/Option.h:35: duplicate member `Option::string'
make[2]: *** [src/GetOption.lo] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0/libgetopt++'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/setup-0'
make: *** [all] Error 2
==
Twas all so minorly amused by this discussion as I was  just about to
ask if setup was supposed to be able to be compiled under cygwin.
I'm  using "setup-2.249.2.5.tar.bz2"

Not that I'm demanding anything, or anything, and not to be disagreeable
(though I'm often seen that way)...but could you give me any hints
as to why I'm unable to compile -- other than "well, you idjiot
(inflected form of idiot), it's obvious that you didn't declare ostream
in the proper scope!"...:-(.  Very sad.

(*wry smile*)
-linda

Re: when is next release of setup.exe

2003-03-08 Thread Igor Pechtchanski 
On 8 Mar 2003, vijay kiran kamuju wrote:

> hi,
>
> when is it going to be the next release of the the setup.exe with
> all the CURRENT PATCHES, i need it asap. as for downloading the
> source frm cvs, i dont have vc++, r a cvs client installed at my
> office. so when r u releasing the new version of setup.exe
>
> bye,
> vijay kamuju

Vijay,

Cygwin setup compiles fine with Cygwin gcc.  You can also use the Cygwin
cvs client.  Both are available as packages from the Cygwin mirrors.  If
you already have Cygwin installed on some machine, the above is the
recommended way...
Igor
P.S. I realize that you may not be able to install Cygwin without the new
setup.  If this is the case, I apologize.
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune