Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:40:46AM -0400, Andr? Bleau wrote:
Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
...
FIRST, the following two packages *must* be rearranged BEFORE the X11R7.0
upgrade, in order not to cause collisions:
opengl:
a) /usr/bin/glui-examples is non-FHS-compiliant; this should be moved to
/usr/lib/glui-examples or the like.
b) /usr/include/GL/glut.h will collide with freeglut when moved to /usr;
this should be moved to /usr/include/w32api/GL/glut.h.
c) I think that /usr/include/{glui,gluix}.h should be moved to
/usr/include/w32api, and /usr/lib/lib
{glui,gluix}.a to /usr/lib/w32api.
...
I can build a new package that would comply to these requirements. My
problem now is that I don't have an HTTP or FTP server where I can leave it
for upload. Could it be possible that I email it directly to one of the
uploaders as an attachement? Bin package is about 1.14 MB.while Src is
about 640 KB.
Yes, you can email these to me, if you want, if when we standardize on
Modular X11: cgf+cygwin-apps AT cgf DOT com
cgf
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 11:14:49AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:40:46AM -0400, Andr? Bleau wrote:
Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
...
FIRST, the following two packages *must* be rearranged BEFORE the X11R7.0
upgrade, in order not to cause collisions:
opengl:
a) /usr/bin/glui-examples is non-FHS-compiliant; this should be moved to
/usr/lib/glui-examples or the like.
b) /usr/include/GL/glut.h will collide with freeglut when moved to /usr;
this should be moved to /usr/include/w32api/GL/glut.h.
c) I think that /usr/include/{glui,gluix}.h should be moved to
/usr/include/w32api, and /usr/lib/lib
{glui,gluix}.a to /usr/lib/w32api.
...
I can build a new package that would comply to these requirements. My
problem now is that I don't have an HTTP or FTP server where I can leave it
for upload. Could it be possible that I email it directly to one of the
uploaders as an attachement? Bin package is about 1.14 MB.while Src is
about 640 KB.
Yes, you can email these to me, if you want, if when we standardize on
Modular X11: cgf+cygwin-apps AT cgf DOT com
Sigh. Why am I always smarter two seconds after hitting 'y'?
cgf+cygwin-apps AT cgf DOT cx
cgf
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Christopher Faylor wrote: ... Yes, you can email these to me, if you want, if when we standardize on Modular X11: cgf+cygwin-apps AT cgf DOT com Sigh. Why am I always smarter two seconds after hitting 'y'? cgf+cygwin-apps AT cgf DOT cx cgf OK, I will send you an updated package by the end of next week. - André Bleau, Cygwin's OpenGL package maintainer. _ Des mécanismes de contrôle parental puissants permettent à votre enfant de découvrir tout ce quInternet a à offrir. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=fr-capage=features/parentalST=1xAPID=1983DI=2043 Commencez dès maintenant à profiter de tous les avantages de MSN Premium et obtenez les deux premiers mois GRATUITS*.
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Charles Wilson wrote: No, I think you should leave it as is. Your 'cxpm.exe' and 'sxpm.exe' should be the official ones; my cxpm-noX is just a hey, cygXpm-noX4.dll kinda works maybe indicator. OK, that's up to you. You'll just need to make xpm-nox-4.2.0-5 current before modular X11 is uploaded (which should give you a little time). And BTW, you might want to announce this too. Yaakov
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote: FIRST, the following two packages *must* be rearranged BEFORE the X11R7.0 upgrade, in order not to cause collisions: xpm-nox has already been taken care of by Charles Wilson, that leaves opengl, whose maintainer AFAICS is André Bleau. SECOND, the following packages install into /usr/X11R6. These should be repackaged into /usr ASAP after the X11R7.0 upgrade: I would like to ask that any future packages, both ITPs and updates, be in /usr; those packages which aren't being updated immediately anyway can wait until modular X11 is available. Of course, I forgot something very important: THIRD, all packages dependent on X11 in any way need to specify which *client* libraries or components they actually require, NOT including the server. I would like to have this figured out by upload time so that I can update the setup.hint's then (but please NOT YET). For my own notes, these are mine that are affected: cairo: libX11 libXrender libcairo2: libX11_6 libXrender1 GConf2: none directly glitz: mesa libglitz-glx1: libGL1 gnome-libs-devel: mesa libgnomeui: libICE6 libSM6 libX11_6 gtk+: libX11_6 libXext6 gtk+-devel: libX11 libXext gtk-engines: none directly gvim: libICE6 libSM6 libX11_6 libXt6 imlib: libX11_6 libXext6 libbonoboui2: libX11_6 libglade2: none directly libgnomeui2: libICE6 libSM6 libgnomeui2-devel: libICE libSM libungif: libX11 libungif4: libX11_6 libwnck1_18: libX11_6 libXres1 libwnck-devel: libX11 libXres perl-Tk: libX11_6 qt3: libGL1 libICE6 libSM6 libX11_6 libXcursor1 libXft2 libXi6 libXmu6 libXrandr2 startup-notification: libX11_6 The following belong to others: GraphicsMagick, libGraphicsMagick-devel, libGraphicsMagick0 ImageMagick, libMagick-devel, libMagick6 TeXmacs WindowMaker Xaw3d XmHTML aalib-devel, libaa1 cgoban ddd emacs-X11 freeglut fvwm gd, libgd-devel, libgd2 ghostscript-x11 gnubg gnuplot grace gtk2-x11-runtime gv jasper lablgtk2 lesstif libggi2-display-aa libggi2-display-x libggiwmh0-display-x libgii1-input-x libwmf nedit openbox pango-runtime ploticus, libploticus plotutils singular-surf t1lib tcm tetex-x11 transfig x2x x3270 xemacs xfig xgraph xmon xpdf xsri xterm In the meantime, I'll keep trying to get the server working. Yaakov
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:20:08PM -0500, Gary R. (Mr. Predictable) Van Sickle wrote: From: Christopher Faylor Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:17 PM To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read) On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote: Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing words of type please... And as a precaution; in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting: No personal offense intended! ;-) Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a lot. You'd be much better served if you just made points without this creepy (paranoid?) need to drag me into a discussion. How did I know he'd take offense at your clarification that there was indeed no personal offense intended, Hannu? Wow. Sorry if I touched a nerve there Gary. That comment was entirely directed at Garbage Collector. I don't see any reason why my name has to show up in this previously interesting technical discussion. If you want to make out-of-the-blue observations about me then this is not the mailing list for it. cgf
Blobthrowers thread (RE: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read))
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:20:08PM -0500, Gary R. (Mr. Predictable) Van Sickle wrote: From: Christopher Faylor Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:17 PM To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read) On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote: Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing words of type please... And as a precaution; in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting: No personal offense intended! ;-) Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a lot. You'd be much better served if you just made points without this creepy (paranoid?) need to drag me into a discussion. How did I know he'd take offense at your clarification that there was indeed no personal offense intended, Hannu? Well, that - and other things I write - seems to trigger it quite nicely. I see this as a sign for a pickyness that that I find rather irritating. CGF, there you have my paranoia - and BTW; did you see that smiley? It was a chance for you to take that note less seriously than you did. Think about it; wouldn't that have been a more pleasent road to travel? Wow. Sorry if I touched a nerve there Gary. That comment was entirely directed at Garbage Collector. I don't see any reason why my name has to show up in this previously interesting technical discussion. So, you now picked out the fact that I use a spamcatching email address - that spells out something you dispise/catches your eyes in a wrong way - and throw that in my face? And you ask why your name popped up!? If you want to make out-of-the-blue observations about me then this is not the mailing list for it. cgf ... and there you had more blobthrowing. All this makes me NOT want to get more engaged in cygwin, though I'm building knowledge that would help in that case with a good pace. Result: At least one maintainer less than there could have been. Will I speak positively about the intellectual level on the cygwin mailing lists? Some more maintainers lost, don't you think? Will I speak positively about the willingness to at least discuss changes that would be to the benefit of a more clean and robust cygwin? Yet one or two maintainers lost, might it be so? More notes (implied above) could be added here... Have a nice evening, wherever you are. /H --
Re: Blobthrowers thread (RE: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read))
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote: CGF, there you have my paranoia - and BTW; did you see that smiley? It was a chance for you to take that note less seriously than you did. Think about it; wouldn't that have been a more pleasent road to travel? First warning: Please do not use the cygwin-apps mailing list for this type of discussion. cgf
RE: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
[Followups set to the more-appropriate cygwin-talk@ list] From: Christopher Faylor On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:20:08PM -0500, Gary R. (Mr. Predictable) Van Sickle wrote: From: Christopher Faylor Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:17 PM To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read) On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote: Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing words of type please... And as a precaution; in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting: No personal offense intended! ;-) Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a lot. You'd be much better served if you just made points without this creepy (paranoid?) need to drag me into a discussion. How did I know he'd take offense at your clarification that there was indeed no personal offense intended, Hannu? Wow. Sorry if I touched a nerve there Gary. ...? Um... so anyway, I guess if you'd like to posit a theory pertaining to my question, I guess that's ok. But here's the *really* odd thing: Igor had the *same* premonition, yet obviously neither of us is a psychic nor able to see into the future, so what gives?!? It's spooky! That comment was entirely directed at Garbage Collector. I don't know who or what that is. I thought Mr. Nevalainen was the poster you were replying to. I don't see any reason why my name has to show up in this previously interesting technical discussion. .? Well, um, yeah, I'll take your word on that. If you want to make out-of-the-blue observations about me then this is not the mailing list for it. Indeed, Reply-To set accordingly. About anyone for that matter, huh? cgf -- Gary R. Van Sickle
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:24:38PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [Followups set to the more-appropriate cygwin-talk@ list] Which is precisely what I'd already requested and is something that you consistently ignore. So long, Gar' old pal. cygwin-apps will miss you. cgf
Apologies (was Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read))
I apologize for letting the recent non-technical discussion get out of hand. I hope that it hasn't been damaged by the recent idiocy (and I do include myself under that umbrella). I really do find this discussion interesting and I'm looking forward to the day when Yaakov takes over the Cygwin/X duties. cgf
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Apr 16 21:19, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote: I have been working on packaging the new, modular X11R7.0 for Cygwin for the last few weeks. [...] So you're actually volunteering yourself as the new Cygwin/X maintainer? This would be worth a couple of gold stars. Are you also willing to maintain the web page at http://xfree.cygwin.com/ and to be a bit active as maintainer on the cygwin-x mailing list? That would be cool. Btw., the X maintainer has traditionally upload permissions. So, if you're going to do this, please fill out the form at http://www.sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
RE: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing words of type please... And as a precaution; in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting: No personal offense intended! ;-) Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a lot. In the process of creating new X packages, might it be possible to begin have a (type of) cleanup happen at the same time? What I'm asking for is: 1) more coordination, please! 2) A SINGLE Start-Programs-Cygwin item, please - *subitems* preferred. As it is now cygwin and some of the dependant stuff is littering the start menu with loads of duplicate items; created by diverse packages. (1) IM(VSP)O this is a must have (2): $ cd /etc/X11 $ diff -u0 X-start-menu-icons-list.orig X-start-menu-icons-list --- X-start-menu-icons-list.orig2006-04-18 19:37:07.34375 +0200 +++ X-start-menu-icons-list 2006-04-18 19:37:33.796875000 +0200 @@ -4 +4 @@ -TOPFOLDER=$(cygpath -A -P)/Cygwin-X +TOPFOLDER=$(cygpath -A -P)/Cygwin/X Suggestion in a short sentence: Make the cygwin base package create Start-Programs-Cygwin, other packages (possibly) create subitem-folders if they find that necessary (a folder per package?). /H IMVSPO - In My Very Strong Personal Opinion --
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote: Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing words of type please... And as a precaution; in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting: No personal offense intended! ;-) Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a lot. You'd be much better served if you just made points without this creepy (paranoid?) need to drag me into a discussion. cgf
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Charles Wilson wrote: But after 5 years, I think we can get rid of it. BTW, my version of sxpm DOES use my cygXpm-X4.dll; without using libW11 or something similar, sxpm can't work in non-X mode. I'll just remove it from xpm-nox. cxpm uses noX, so I'll rename my version as you suggested. Test version xpm-nox-4.2.0-5 is up on sourceware, with the following filelist: cxpm is only dependent on cygwin, so I wonder if even this is necessary. Right now I have cxpm and sxpm in the same package, but it wouldn't be a big deal to separate them, so that cxpm can be installed without pulling in sxpm's dependencies (8 X11 libraries). Otherwise, this looks good. Thank you for taking care of this. Yaakov
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Corinna Vinschen wrote: So you're actually volunteering yourself as the new Cygwin/X maintainer? I'm working on it, but I'm not fully committing until everything is actually working and packaged. Are you also willing to maintain the web page at http://xfree.cygwin.com/ and to be a bit active as maintainer on the cygwin-x mailing list? These are two areas for which I could use some assistance, particularly with the latter. the X maintainer has traditionally upload permissions. You mean you don't want an upload request for 250+ packages? :-D When everything is ready, I'll go ahead with this. Yaakov
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote: Charles Wilson wrote: But after 5 years, I think we can get rid of it. BTW, my version of sxpm DOES use my cygXpm-X4.dll; without using libW11 or something similar, sxpm can't work in non-X mode. I'll just remove it from xpm-nox. cxpm uses noX, so I'll rename my version as you suggested. Test version xpm-nox-4.2.0-5 is up on sourceware, with the following filelist: cxpm is only dependent on cygwin, so I wonder if even this is necessary. Err...sortof. It's true that cxpm doesn't link against any *xpm* DLL. That's because it directly includes various .o's from the libXpm/lib when linking. So, cxpm-nox uses *different* xpm code than cxpm-x does: in fact, cxpm-nox exercises the code inside cygXpm-noX4.dll (it just has its own copy of that binary code), while cxpm(-x) exercises its own copy of the code inside cygXpm-4.dll. So, there really should be two different versions of cxpm -- 'cause they are different. Right now I have cxpm and sxpm in the same package, but it wouldn't be a big deal to separate them, so that cxpm can be installed without pulling in sxpm's dependencies (8 X11 libraries). No, I think you should leave it as is. Your 'cxpm.exe' and 'sxpm.exe' should be the official ones; my cxpm-noX is just a hey, cygXpm-noX4.dll kinda works maybe indicator. Otherwise, this looks good. Thank you for taking care of this. Sure -- now I just need to redo some of my pending ITPs. g -- Chuck
RE: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
From: Christopher Faylor Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:17 PM To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read) On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote: Sorry for writing in a shorthand style. Please fill in the missing words of type please... And as a precaution; in case CGF happens to read this and finds anything upsetting: No personal offense intended! ;-) Remember; I would NOT be here writing this unless I lkied cygwin a lot. You'd be much better served if you just made points without this creepy (paranoid?) need to drag me into a discussion. cgf How did I know he'd take offense at your clarification that there was indeed no personal offense intended, Hannu? -- Gary R. Van Sickle
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
--- Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote: I have been working on packaging the new, modular X11R7.0 for Cygwin for the last few weeks. Mega-gold-stars for you! SECOND, the following packages install into /usr/X11R6. These should be repackaged into /usr ASAP after the X11R7.0 upgrade: [...] ghostscript-x11 [2] OK [...] [2] ghostscript currently provides two sets of executables; a non-X version in /usr and an X version in /usr/X11R6. What is the reasoning for this, and is it really necessary? It is necessary if you want to have a ghostscript version that does not depend on X. Maybe this will be less important now, with the modular X, but I suspect it is still important. ghostscript functions just fine as a command-line filter, so many folks would prefer to have the non-X version. The X version has the additional capability to write a bitmap rendering to an X client - I think that is about the only difference. I'll take a look at how Debian or Ubuntu handle it, and see if I can shamelessly copy their ideas. Jim Phillips
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
--- James R. Phillips wrote: --- Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote: I have been working on packaging the new, modular X11R7.0 for Cygwin for the last few weeks. Mega-gold-stars for you! SECOND, the following packages install into /usr/X11R6. These should be repackaged into /usr ASAP after the X11R7.0 upgrade: [...] ghostscript-x11 [2] OK [...] [2] ghostscript currently provides two sets of executables; a non-X version in /usr and an X version in /usr/X11R6. What is the reasoning for this, and is it really necessary? It is necessary if you want to have a ghostscript version that does not depend on X. Maybe this will be less important now, with the modular X, but I suspect it is still important. ghostscript functions just fine as a command-line filter, so many folks would prefer to have the non-X version. The X version has the additional capability to write a bitmap rendering to an X client - I think that is about the only difference. I'll take a look at how Debian or Ubuntu handle it, and see if I can shamelessly copy their ideas. Jim Phillips OK, I looked at debian, and to my surprise they don't offer a version of ghostscript that doesn't depend on X. And this in spite of the fact that they haven't switched to the modular X-server yet (although they will shortly). So I wonder if cygwin really needs to support a non-X version of ghostscript in the future. I have no clue whether it might be able to live with a small subset of the newly-modular X libraries. Thoughtful comments would be appreciated. If we keep both versions, we need a way to keep them from overwriting each other, because they could both be installed. This needs to be considered because cygwin setup doesn't have a concept of conflicting packages. The current arrangement just puts them in different paths, and lets the $PATH environmental variable sort out which one you will get. I don't think the alternatives sytem really does what you want for this set of packages, because one is _not_ just as good as the other, i.e., if the version linked to X is installed, you definitely want to use it. It should probably be taken care of using a symlinks in pre- and post-install scripts. The desired behavior would be to use the non-X version only if it is the only version installed; and otherwise to set the symlink to the version that is linked to X. jrp
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, James R. Phillips wrote: --- James R. Phillips wrote: --- Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote: I have been working on packaging the new, modular X11R7.0 for Cygwin for the last few weeks. Mega-gold-stars for you! SECOND, the following packages install into /usr/X11R6. These should be repackaged into /usr ASAP after the X11R7.0 upgrade: [...] ghostscript-x11 [2] OK [...] [2] ghostscript currently provides two sets of executables; a non-X version in /usr and an X version in /usr/X11R6. What is the reasoning for this, and is it really necessary? It is necessary if you want to have a ghostscript version that does not depend on X. Maybe this will be less important now, with the modular X, but I suspect it is still important. ghostscript functions just fine as a command-line filter, so many folks would prefer to have the non-X version. The X version has the additional capability to write a bitmap rendering to an X client - I think that is about the only difference. I'll take a look at how Debian or Ubuntu handle it, and see if I can shamelessly copy their ideas. OK, I looked at debian, and to my surprise they don't offer a version of ghostscript that doesn't depend on X. And this in spite of the fact that they haven't switched to the modular X-server yet (although they will shortly). X is part of the base Debian install. It is not part of the base Cygwin install. So I wonder if cygwin really needs to support a non-X version of ghostscript in the future. I have no clue whether it might be able to live with a small subset of the newly-modular X libraries. Thoughtful comments would be appreciated. Unless the set of X libraries is *really* small, it would make sense to have a non-X version of ghostscript. If we keep both versions, we need a way to keep them from overwriting each other, because they could both be installed. This needs to be considered because cygwin setup doesn't have a concept of conflicting packages. The current arrangement just puts them in different paths, and lets the $PATH environmental variable sort out which one you will get. I don't think the alternatives sytem really does what you want for this set of packages, because one is _not_ just as good as the other, i.e., if the version linked to X is installed, you definitely want to use it. It should probably be taken care of using a symlinks in pre- and post-install scripts. The desired behavior would be to use the non-X version only if it is the only version installed; and otherwise to set the symlink to the version that is linked to X. You're right, the alternatives system will not work. You could try to have a postinstall script that retargets a symlink -- have ghostscript-nox postinstall only create the symlink if not present, but let ghostscript-x11 retarget the symlink if it points to the nox version. Besides, I'm sure many files could be shared betwee the two installations. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!) |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte. But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in that! -- Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Igor Peshansky wrote: Not only that, it will affect many users' shortcuts. For example, many users have a shortcut to xterm that says something like c:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin\run /usr/X11R6/bin/xterm [options] Some have quite a few. If we go through with this change, we'll need to find a good way of dealing with the move so that shortcuts either won't need to be changed, or can be changed automatically. FWIW, we cannot use mounts, since shortcuts use Win32 paths. Obviously X-startup-scripts and X-start-menu-icons will have to be updated, but I'm not sure about how to handle user-created shortcuts. Yes. Its purpose is the same as xpm-nox -- to allow rendering postscript to a non-screen device in batch mode. People who don't have X may still want to do this, for example to convert postscript to PDF. Since X11 will now be *modular*, is that such a big deal? Based on the current ghostscript-8.50 dependecies, the X11 gs should require a total of 6 X11 runtime libraries and libX11-data. Since I've packaged the runtime libraries separately from the development libs (i.e. libSM source - libSM6 runtime and libSM devel and docs), I wouldn't consider this excessive. You'll also have to think of things like X-startup-scripts. While they are not part of the X server proper, many people rely on them to start the X server. There may also be quite a few custom scripts with hard-coded paths, but a simple symlink of /usr/X11R6-/usr should do the trick for those. Indeed, Gentoo has had a /usr/X11R6-/usr symlink since xorg-x11-6.8, and I was considering the same, but that will only be possible once everything else moves out of /usr/X11R6, and AFAIK won't help with the Windows shortcuts. Yaakov
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
--- Igor Peshansky wrote: X is part of the base Debian install. It is not part of the base Cygwin install. Um, that is not true. It is still perfectly possible to setup a debian install without any X libraries. But of course you couldn't install ghostscript. Unless the set of X libraries is *really* small, it would make sense to have a non-X version of ghostscript. OK, we'll have to wait and see on that. Otherwise, I guess we have consensus in principle on a method to carry both versions forward. jrp
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, James R. Phillips wrote: --- Igor Peshansky wrote: X is part of the base Debian install. It is not part of the base Cygwin install. Um, that is not true. It is still perfectly possible to setup a debian install without any X libraries. But of course you couldn't install ghostscript. Right. I guess I should have said X is part of the common Debian install (and it isn't part of the common Cygwin install). However, once we switch to the modular codebase, nothing really prevents us from adding parts of X to the common Cygwin install. I'm not convinced that it's such a good idea, but it's a possibility. Unless the set of X libraries is *really* small, it would make sense to have a non-X version of ghostscript. OK, we'll have to wait and see on that. Otherwise, I guess we have consensus in principle on a method to carry both versions forward. You're the maintainer -- ultimately, it's your call. :-) Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!) |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte. But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in that! -- Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
James R. Phillips wrote: --- Igor Peshansky wrote: Unless the set of X libraries is *really* small, it would make sense to have a non-X version of ghostscript. OK, we'll have to wait and see on that. Otherwise, I guess we have consensus in principle on a method to carry both versions forward. I'm currently estimating 6 runtime libraries and 1 data package, to satisfy gs's dependency on libX11 and libXt. I doubt more than that will be necessary for basic usage, but we'll have to see. Yaakov
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote: Igor Peshansky wrote: Yes. [the] purpose [of nonX gs] is the same as xpm-nox -- to allow rendering postscript to a non-screen device in batch mode. People who don't have X may still want to do this, for example to convert postscript to PDF. Since X11 will now be *modular*, is that such a big deal? Based on the current ghostscript-8.50 dependecies, the X11 gs should require a total of 6 X11 runtime libraries and libX11-data. Since I've packaged the runtime libraries separately from the development libs (i.e. libSM source - libSM6 runtime and libSM devel and docs), I wouldn't consider this excessive. You're forgetting one thing: you also MUST have the X-server actually running when you invoke the X-based gs, even in batch mode. I wouldn't want my conversion script -- which has *nothing* to do with X -- to fail simply because I didn't start the Xserver. I'd recommend something like a script wrapped around checkX -- but I'd have to add checkX to cygutils or something first, instead of packaging it with the [not yet approved ITP] for rxvt-unicode-[X|common]. Then again, that gets really unwieldy and kludgy, fast. Maybe this should just be relegated to 'caveat emptor': you want to be sure you're using the non-X gs, then call gs-non-x.exe. -- Chuck
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
Charles Wilson wrote: But after 5 years, I think we can get rid of it. BTW, my version of sxpm DOES use my cygXpm-X4.dll; without using libW11 or something similar, sxpm can't work in non-X mode. I'll just remove it from xpm-nox. cxpm uses noX, so I'll rename my version as you suggested. Test version xpm-nox-4.2.0-5 is up on sourceware, with the following filelist: usr/bin/cxpm-noX.exe usr/bin/cygXpm-noX4.dll usr/include/noX/simx.h usr/include/noX/X11/simx.h usr/include/noX/X11/xpm.h usr/include/noX/xpm.h usr/lib/noX/libXpm.a usr/lib/noX/libXpm.dll.a usr/share/doc/Cygwin/xpm-nox-4.2.0.README usr/share/doc/xpm-nox-4.2.0/CHANGES usr/share/doc/xpm-nox-4.2.0/COPYRIGHT usr/share/doc/xpm-nox-4.2.0/FAQ.html usr/share/doc/xpm-nox-4.2.0/README.html usr/share/doc/xpm-nox-4.2.0/README.MSW usr/share/doc/xpm-nox-4.2.0/README.XFree86 usr/share/doc/xpm-nox-4.2.0/xpm.PS.gz usr/share/man/man1/cxpm-noX.1.gz -- Chuck
Re: HEADS-UP: Modular X11 (ALL maintainers, please read)
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
I have been working on packaging the new, modular X11R7.0 for Cygwin for
the last few weeks. There's still a few dozen packages left, but the
time has come to deal with handling some of the issues involved in this
transition.
Good job!
For those unaware of X11 internals, the major changes included in
X11R7.0 over our current X11R6.8 are:
[snip]
3) /usr/X11R6 is deprecated; like any other package, X11R7.0 is being
configured with --prefix=/usr.
The move to /usr will affect a number of packages.
Not only that, it will affect many users' shortcuts. For example, many
users have a shortcut to xterm that says something like
c:\cygwin\usr\X11R6\bin\run /usr/X11R6/bin/xterm [options]
Some have quite a few. If we go through with this change, we'll need to
find a good way of dealing with the move so that shortcuts either won't
need to be changed, or can be changed automatically.
FWIW, we cannot use mounts, since shortcuts use Win32 paths.
FIRST, the following two packages *must* be rearranged BEFORE the X11R7.0
upgrade, in order not to cause collisions:
[snip]
xpm-nox:
a) /usr/bin/{c,s}xpm.exe and /usr/share/man/man1/{c,s}xpm.1 will collide with
those provided by libXpm. These should have -noX appended to their names.
SECOND, the following packages install into /usr/X11R6. These should be
repackaged into /usr ASAP after the X11R7.0 upgrade:
[snip]
[2] ghostscript currently provides two sets of executables; a non-X
version in /usr and an X version in /usr/X11R6. What is the reasoning
for this, and is it really necessary?
Yes. Its purpose is the same as xpm-nox -- to allow rendering postscript
to a non-screen device in batch mode. People who don't have X may still
want to do this, for example to convert postscript to PDF.
Status:
By tonight, I'll have completed everything relevant in app, data, doc,
lib, proto, and util. That leaves font and xserver remaining.
You'll also have to think of things like X-startup-scripts. While they
are not part of the X server proper, many people rely on them to start the
X server. There may also be quite a few custom scripts with hard-coded
paths, but a simple symlink of /usr/X11R6-/usr should do the trick for
those.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte.
But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that! -- Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac
