Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
Robert Collins wrote: > >>-Original Message- >>From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 8:33 AM >> > >>if you select the source for more than one of [bob|bobx|boby], then it >>is downloaded only once (good) but is unpacked three times. This isn't >> > >>a terrible thing, but it is a waste of effort >> > > This won't change anytime soon. Long term we'll have the concept of a > source package - as opposed to a src attribute of an existing package. > This will require setup.ini changes to represent properly, so I want all > the kinks out first... Like I said, NOT a showstopper. you ONLY see this behavior if you click the src checkbox for multiple packages that all share the same source. It's only downloaded once. When setup is done, you have the source. Behind the scenes, that source package gets installed multiple times. Big deal. IMO, if upset gets the ability to do the right thing with an 'external-src:' directive in setup.hint, then everything necessary for multiple-bin/single-src packages would be in place. --Chuck --Chuck
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
> -Original Message- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 8:33 AM >if you select the source for more than one of [bob|bobx|boby], then it >is downloaded only once (good) but is unpacked three times. This isn't >a terrible thing, but it is a waste of effort This won't change anytime soon. Long term we'll have the concept of a source package - as opposed to a src attribute of an existing package. This will require setup.ini changes to represent properly, so I want all the kinks out first... Rob
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
Robert Collins wrote: > >>-Original Message- >>From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:59 PM >> > >>Also, setup must do the following (even without new 'views' >>and whatnot) >> > > Setup should already do that, why not make a test setup.ini and see what > happens :]. It's all data driven and there is no requirement for -src > packages to follow the same name as the base. Whaddaya know. It works. point setup.exe here: http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/testing/ There are 3 packages, bob, bobx, and boby. only bob has a -src package, the other two have source: lines that explicitly specify bob's source package. It seems to work perfectly -- with only a single niggle: if you select the source for more than one of [bob|bobx|boby], then it is downloaded only once (good) but is unpacked three times. This isn't a terrible thing, but it is a waste of effort If you play around with this, you can clean up by uninstalling the "binary" packages, and deleting the file /usr/src/bob.file.src. (Or, you can delete /bob.file, /bobx.file, /boby.file, and /usr/src/bob.file.src, and remove the bob, bobx, and boby entries from /etc/setup/installed.db) So, except for the niggle above, if upset were modified to allow the external-src: keyword, then multiple-binary-packages from one -src package would work! (and the niggle isn't a show stopper). --Chuck
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 10:59:29PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >P.S. Chris, where'd upset go? the current version used to be in >htdocs, but it's gone now. AND, the old version which lived in >cinstall/temp, is still there -- and you said you were going to remove it. http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-02/msg00028.html cinstall/temp is an empty directory. >Did you remove the wrong one? Nope. upset2 is gone now, though. It is now 'upset'. cgf
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
> -Original Message- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:59 PM > Also, setup must do the following (even without new 'views' > and whatnot) Setup should already do that, why not make a test setup.ini and see what happens :]. It's all data driven and there is no requirement for -src packages to follow the same name as the base. Rob
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
Robert Collins wrote: >>>we have to make XFree86-base-src the package that contained the full >>>source archive. >>> >>Hmm. Yes. I think this would work. That might be the best solution. >> >>In fact, it may be a nice trend setter. >> > > I think setup.exe needs a little work before doing this, but it's a good > direction. (i.e. setup.exe should have a view to only show src packages, > and a view to only show binaries - to avoid confusing folk). (Think > apt-get source vs apt-get install). How about my 'external-src: ' idea? setup hint for XFree86-[anything but base]-... external-src: XFree86-base setup hint for XFree86-base- and both upset and setup will understand this and "do the right thing": upset needs to, for those pkgs with an external-src in their setup hint, find the -src tarball for the indicated package, whose VER-REL string matches the package-under-consideration, and put THAT into setup.hint, so (for the fonts "package") you get install: release/xfree/xfree86-fonts/XFree86-fonts-4.2.0-2.tar.bz2 source: release/xfree/xfree86-base/XFree86-base-4.2.0-2-src.tar.bz2 [prev] install: release/xfree/xfree86-fonts/XFree86-fonts-4.2.0-1.tar.bz2 source: release/xfree/xfree86-base/XFree86-base-4.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 Also, setup must do the following (even without new 'views' and whatnot) 1) all XFree86-...- indicate that src is available (that is, 'presence of a -src tarball' == 'no -src tarball but external-src: marker in setup.hint' 2) clicking on any one (or multiple) of the 'src' checkboxes in setup will trigger a download (and only one download) of the actual XFree86-base-4.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 package - Later, we can get even fancier, and allow the specification of multiple -src packages...then the monolithic 'XFree86-base-4.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2' can be split into "the stuff that cygwin-xfree doesn't change" and "the stuff that changes frequently" (e.g. .../hw/xwin). e.g. setup hint for XFree86-[anything but base]-... external-src: XFree86-base setup hint for XFree86-base- extra-src: XFree86-base2 in release/xfree/xfree86-base/ XFree86-base-4.2.0-1.tar.bz2 XFree86-base-4.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 XFree86-base2-4.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 But that (or something like it) can be later - --Chuck P.S. Chris, where'd upset go? the current version used to be in htdocs, but it's gone now. AND, the old version which lived in cinstall/temp, is still there -- and you said you were going to remove it. Did you remove the wrong one?
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
> -Original Message- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:48 AM > >I didn't quite gather from the earlier discussions whether > we can have > >a source package seperate from any binary packages. i.e., could we > >have XFree86-full-src without an associated binary package? > Or would > >we have to make XFree86-base-src the package that contained the full > >source archive. > > Hmm. Yes. I think this would work. That might be the best solution. > > In fact, it may be a nice trend setter. I think setup.exe needs a little work before doing this, but it's a good direction. (i.e. setup.exe should have a view to only show src packages, and a view to only show binaries - to avoid confusing folk). (Think apt-get source vs apt-get install). Rob
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 04:55:57PM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: >The main problem with -src packages for us is that almost nothing will >change after an XFree86 release except for the >xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xwin directory, where I make modifications to >the XWin server. So, what do I do for packaging? Which of the >XFree86-* packages do I include source with? Do I include one huge >tarball with everything and another small tarball that has just the >hw/xwin directory so that it can be easily updated? I'm confused. I had the same thoughts and hoped you'd have a brilliant solution. :-) >I didn't quite gather from the earlier discussions whether we can have >a source package seperate from any binary packages. i.e., could we >have XFree86-full-src without an associated binary package? Or would >we have to make XFree86-base-src the package that contained the full >source archive. Hmm. Yes. I think this would work. That might be the best solution. In fact, it may be a nice trend setter. > >In a related question that has to do with my laziness, I need a way to >tarball a CVS tree without including the CVS directories. I'm sure this can >be done with a simple script, but I'm a programmer not a script writer. >Anyone want to point me to an existing script that does this, or write one >for me? From my "generate a package" script: find $package_src/* -print -follow | egrep -v '\.cvsignore|\.bak$|\.orig$|~$|^.#|CVS|%redact|/tags$' | egrep -v "$src_exclude" | sort | tar -T - --no-recursion -cjf "$tarstem"-src.tar.bz2 cgf
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
> -Original Message- > From: Harold Hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 6:56 AM > In a related question that has to do with my laziness, I need > a way to tarball a CVS tree without including the CVS > directories. I'm sure this can be done with a simple script, > but I'm a programmer not a script writer. Anyone want to > point me to an existing script that does this, or write one for me? Grab the -src for one of the packages that Chuck or I maintain - say libxslt. There is a tar command in the .sh that filters out various directories... I'm sure you can adapt it easily. Rob
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
Chris, > It's up there. Should be on mirrors shortly. Very cool. > One thing I just noticed, though (by looking at > http://cygwin.com/packages/), was that the source tar.bz2 files don't > seem to be part of this. There should probably be fewer source tar > balls than binary but they should be part of the distribution, right? > If not, we'll inevitably get questions. I've thought about this enough to make my head spin. The only real solution I could come up with is to tell folks to go to the XFree86 CVS tree. The main problem with -src packages for us is that almost nothing will change after an XFree86 release except for the xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xwin directory, where I make modifications to the XWin server. So, what do I do for packaging? Which of the XFree86-* packages do I include source with? Do I include one huge tarball with everything and another small tarball that has just the hw/xwin directory so that it can be easily updated? I'm confused. I didn't quite gather from the earlier discussions whether we can have a source package seperate from any binary packages. i.e., could we have XFree86-full-src without an associated binary package? Or would we have to make XFree86-base-src the package that contained the full source archive. In a related question that has to do with my laziness, I need a way to tarball a CVS tree without including the CVS directories. I'm sure this can be done with a simple script, but I'm a programmer not a script writer. Anyone want to point me to an existing script that does this, or write one for me? Later, Harold > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available > for comments and testing > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 12:52:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:24:48AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: > >>Chris, > >> > >>> Shall we add this to the cygwin distro or are we still waiting for > >>> some postinstall shell script work? > >> > >>These will forever be known as Harold's Famous Last Words: > >>Sure Chris, why not? Go ahead and add the packages to the distro. > >> > >>Be aware, I just updated XFree86-xserv to 4.2.0-2, so you'll > need to grab > >>the latest packages off of ftp://huntharo-4.user.msu.edu/pub/cygwin/ > >> > >>That's all for now. > >> > >>I can't wait to see how many people use Cygwin/XFree86 now! > > > >Ditto. Hope you're ready for this. > > It's up there. Should be on mirrors shortly. > > One thing I just noticed, though (by looking at > http://cygwin.com/packages/), was that the source tar.bz2 files don't > seem to be part of this. There should probably be fewer source tar > balls than binary but they should be part of the distribution, right? > If not, we'll inevitably get questions. > > cgf
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 12:52:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:24:48AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: >>Chris, >> >>> Shall we add this to the cygwin distro or are we still waiting for >>> some postinstall shell script work? >> >>These will forever be known as Harold's Famous Last Words: >> Sure Chris, why not? Go ahead and add the packages to the distro. >> >>Be aware, I just updated XFree86-xserv to 4.2.0-2, so you'll need to grab >>the latest packages off of ftp://huntharo-4.user.msu.edu/pub/cygwin/ >> >>That's all for now. >> >>I can't wait to see how many people use Cygwin/XFree86 now! > >Ditto. Hope you're ready for this. It's up there. Should be on mirrors shortly. One thing I just noticed, though (by looking at http://cygwin.com/packages/), was that the source tar.bz2 files don't seem to be part of this. There should probably be fewer source tar balls than binary but they should be part of the distribution, right? If not, we'll inevitably get questions. cgf
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:24:48AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: >Chris, > >> Shall we add this to the cygwin distro or are we still waiting for >> some postinstall shell script work? > >These will forever be known as Harold's Famous Last Words: > Sure Chris, why not? Go ahead and add the packages to the distro. > >Be aware, I just updated XFree86-xserv to 4.2.0-2, so you'll need to grab >the latest packages off of ftp://huntharo-4.user.msu.edu/pub/cygwin/ > >That's all for now. > >I can't wait to see how many people use Cygwin/XFree86 now! Ditto. Hope you're ready for this. cgf
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
Chris, > Shall we add this to the cygwin distro or are we still waiting for > some postinstall shell script work? These will forever be known as Harold's Famous Last Words: Sure Chris, why not? Go ahead and add the packages to the distro. Be aware, I just updated XFree86-xserv to 4.2.0-2, so you'll need to grab the latest packages off of ftp://huntharo-4.user.msu.edu/pub/cygwin/ That's all for now. I can't wait to see how many people use Cygwin/XFree86 now! Oh, we can wait for the postinstall shell script. That will really be just icing on the cake. Harold
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:33:10PM +0200, Teun Burgers wrote: >Harold Hunt wrote: > >> I'm awaiting feedback, > >This is the first time I installed/used xfree86 at all. I used setup on >the URL you gave and everything went smoothly (including the >dependencies). > >I downloaded and installed just the basic set, added /usr/X11R6/bin >to my path, ran startx (got a lot of warnings from Zonealarm which >makes sense of cause) and started twm after that. > >Very good job! Shall we add this to the cygwin distro or are we still waiting for some postinstall shell script work? cgf
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:37:08AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: >>Try setting it up like sourceware then. The directory defaults to >>'release'. Just do 'upset -u setup.ini' in a directory containing a >>the 'release' directory. > >I just moved contrib to release and the new upset works like a dream! Good. I think I fixed the bug with reading directories, too. That was a "feature" that I added in the last week. Never tested it and, surprise!, it didn't work. cgf
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
> Try setting it up like sourceware then. The directory defaults > to 'release'. > Just do 'upset -u setup.ini' in a directory containing a the > 'release' directory. I just moved contrib to release and the new upset works like a dream! Harold > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available > for comments and testing > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:18:19AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: > >> The syntax for upset should just be "upset dir" where `dir' is the > >> directory containing the distribution. setup.ini will go to stdout. > >> > >> upset -u setup.ini dir > >> > >> will update an existing setup.ini. > > > >I beg to differ. > > Try setting it up like sourceware then. The directory defaults > to 'release'. > Just do 'upset -u setup.ini' in a directory containing a the > 'release' directory. > > cgf
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:18:19AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: >> The syntax for upset should just be "upset dir" where `dir' is the >> directory containing the distribution. setup.ini will go to stdout. >> >> upset -u setup.ini dir >> >> will update an existing setup.ini. > >I beg to differ. Try setting it up like sourceware then. The directory defaults to 'release'. Just do 'upset -u setup.ini' in a directory containing a the 'release' directory. cgf
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
> The syntax for upset should just be "upset dir" where `dir' is the > directory containing the distribution. setup.ini will go to stdout. > > upset -u setup.ini dir > > will update an existing setup.ini. I beg to differ. From my "packages" directory that contains contrib, release, etc. I have run: upset . upset ./ upset ../packages upset contrib/ You get the idea. Every single time I get: $ ../upset/infra/bin/cygwin/upset . # This file is automatically generated. If you edit it, your # edits will be discarded next time the file is generated. # See http://cygwin.com/setup.html for details. # setup-timestamp: 1019106912 setup-version: 2.194.2.24 The new upset doesn't seem to work for me. Perhaps it is just a problem with the structure of our package tree. Harold
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 01:02:51AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: >>Looks like you figured out upset. Sorry about not responding. > >Actually, I did the same thing that Ian did and reverted to the upset >from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/src > >in the directory: winsup/cinstall/temp I'd forgotten about that directory. It's nuked now. The syntax for upset should just be "upset dir" where `dir' is the directory containing the distribution. setup.ini will go to stdout. upset -u setup.ini dir will update an existing setup.ini. cgf
RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
> Looks like you figured out upset. Sorry about not responding. Actually, I did the same thing that Ian did and reverted to the upset from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/src in the directory: winsup/cinstall/temp That version of upset reports the version number as the whole file name before the .tar.bz2 (i.e. XFree86-bin-4.2.0-1 instead of 4.2.0-1) and also manages to mangle the version reported from setup.exe: setup-version: 2.194.2.24^@ %d.%d.%d.%d^@Can't Oh well, at least I got the script to do a little bit of what I needed it for. :) > It needs at least an empty tar file. Okay. I'm working on that now. > >2) I'm not sure why, but uninstalling packages often leaves files > >around. For example, uninstalling XFree86-f100 delete all files from > >/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/ except for "UTRG__24.pcf.gz". Weird. > > There was another report of cygwin not removing files in the cygwin > mailing list. Was that possibly the last in the list from a > /etc/setup/whatever.lst.gz file? Yes. That is it exactly. I also tried this with the XFree86-bin file and it failed to remove libXxf86vm.a, which was the last file in XFree86-bin.lst.gz. > >3) We may need a short post-install script, based off of Xinstall.sh, > >that runs mkfontdir in the /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/local and > >/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc font directories. Xinstall.sh says it > >does this to make sure that these directories are "up to date". I > >guess that every font package has the right to install fonts in local > >or misc, but it seems that none of them do. Perhaps this won't matter. > > How about mounting the font directory in binmode, too? Excellent idea. Now I just need someone to write that script. Shouldn't be too hard. Any takers? Harold
Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:14:30PM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote: >I have setup an anonymous ftp site with preliminary Cygwin/XFree86 >setup.exe packages: ftp://huntharo-4.user.msu.edu/pub/cygwin/ Looks like you figured out upset. Sorry about not responding. >These is based entirely off of Ian Burrell's work. > >My primary concerns that I don't know how to resolve are: >1) I didn't do the XFree86-base "meta" package properly. setup.exe >does not list XFree86-base as a package and it doesn't enforce the >dependencies of the other packages on XFree86-base. It needs at least an empty tar file. >2) I'm not sure why, but uninstalling packages often leaves files >around. For example, uninstalling XFree86-f100 delete all files from >/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/ except for "UTRG__24.pcf.gz". Weird. There was another report of cygwin not removing files in the cygwin mailing list. Was that possibly the last in the list from a /etc/setup/whatever.lst.gz file? >3) We may need a short post-install script, based off of Xinstall.sh, >that runs mkfontdir in the /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/local and >/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc font directories. Xinstall.sh says it >does this to make sure that these directories are "up to date". I >guess that every font package has the right to install fonts in local >or misc, but it seems that none of them do. Perhaps this won't matter. How about mounting the font directory in binmode, too? cgf
