Status on coreutils? (was: Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Igor Pechtchanski wrote: | The latest on coreutils is that it's still not ready to go mainstream | (http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00150.html). What is the current status on this? I still have it in my ITP queue and my Bugzilla is starting to whine about it, but if there's another ITP that is ready to go mainstream, I'll be happy to kick it out of my queue and be done with it ;) If there's no progress, I'll use the little time I have a Windows computer next to me on my desk to work on coreutils rather than example programs for Cygwin-docs (should have a Windows box this afternoon). rlc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAbDeOU1nODpimgXsRAsTWAKCsNCUEo5QnLBO3fYY/sc0KSo7siwCgofV0 EVl4J/U/lw+D54+BbK6Wy7w= =7vzt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Faylor wrote: | On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:02:55PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: | |cgf wrote: | | |I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the |distribution, however. | |Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on |these things. It could have rules like a package needs a simple |majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion. I'd envision seven |people on the committee. I have names in mind but the only two |definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto |power. | |I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be |included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com |which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff |for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here |which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. | |I'd really like to object to this SC idea, as most of us *have* |exercised restraint while a select few have not. Why should the |responsible maintainers be punished for someone's binge ITP'ing? I |think we should keep it the way it is, perhaps with a little more of you |laying the smack-down on anyone who is abusing it. I would respect a |veto from you, Corinna, or Chuck, but the voting should still be left to |the existing maintainers. After seeing what a steering committee has |done to gcc, I'd be very hesitant to subject Cygwin to one. | | | I guess we have differing views on how the steering committee affected | gcc but this is really very different from the gcc (or gdb) steering | committee. In general, I think they do a good job. | | However, just because I used a similar term to describe this doesn't | mean that it will be exactly like gcc's steering committee. | | I'm coming to feel that their should be a higher bar for package entry | into the release and don't think that any old package maintainer should | get an equal vote in the process. Why not make the vote proportional to the number of packages the maintainer maintains? I agree any ol' maintainer should not have as many votes as, say, you, but an SC might make things a bit too massive.. |Here's one idea to limit the binge ITP's: |No more than 1 ITP per month unless approved by either you or Corinna. | I can't speak for Corinna, but I would rather *not* have to be the bad | guy or a single (double?) point of contact. I would rather have more | community involvement. I'm already drowning in being the focal point | for most cygwin bugs with help from only two other developers. I don't | want to invent new things for me or Corinna to do, especially when there | is no requirement for in-depth cygwin knowledge. In that case, why not make the SC, but just five the SC members veto right whereas all package maintainers would still have the right to vote? In that case, you and Corinna would be permanent members of the SC and the package maintainers could nominate the five other members (two nominees per maintainer). The five members that get the most nominations become the members. If there's a tie, we vote. | Setting up a council or committee to approve or disprove apps means | that the load is shared and there theoretically a consistent way for | packages to be included. Yes, but it also takes away community involvement, concentrating it on a few elected members. long-winded_idea Let me elaborate my idea a bit: the SC would consist of seven members, all package maintainers and/or cygwin (or cygwin-setup) developers. Two members - cgf and Corinna - have a permanent seat on the SC. The other five members have a six-month (or perhaps 12-month) term renewable ad infinitum. All package maintainers get to vote on ITPs. The number of votes they carry is equal to the number of packages they maintain. Package admission requires at least 50% of the total votes (i.e. if there are 100 packages in the distro, 50 votes are required for a new packages to be admitted, but those 50 votes could come from only three people). To avoid one person getting a decisive positive vote, the 50% of votes must come from at least three different package maintainers. The SC members all get a veto right and may prioritize certain packages - - i.e. they may emit an ITP request (this would be a nice addition to the Cygwin distro - maintainer wanted). People that are not in the SC don't have the right to emit ITP requests. An ITP that is a response to an ITP request is exempt of voting. This gives the SC members positive power as well as the negative (veto) power they already have. It is up to the SC members to discuss ITP requests amongst themselves (on a dedicated cygwin-sc list, perhaps?) The SC members will also have the power to ban a package from the distro when it is already in the distro - either because the maintainer is MIA, the package has no real business being in the distro, or any other reason that is justifiable. Again, this
Re: Status on coreutils? (was: Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?)
On Apr 1 10:39, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Igor Pechtchanski wrote: | The latest on coreutils is that it's still not ready to go mainstream | (http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00150.html). What is the current status on this? I still have it in my ITP queue and my Bugzilla is starting to whine about it, but if there's another ITP that is ready to go mainstream, I'll be happy to kick it out of my queue and be done with it ;) If there's no progress, I'll use the little time I have a Windows computer next to me on my desk to work on coreutils rather than example programs for Cygwin-docs (should have a Windows box this afternoon). Ask Mark what's the problem. He was already as far as removing su, kill and uptime from the binary package but then... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
On Mar 28 17:24, Christopher Faylor wrote: I can't speak for Corinna, but I would rather *not* have to be the bad guy or a single (double?) point of contact. I would rather have more community involvement. I'm already drowning in being the focal point for most cygwin bugs with help from only two other developers. I don't want to invent new things for me or Corinna to do, especially when there is no requirement for in-depth cygwin knowledge. I second the idea of a community driven cygwin net distribution and I would say that it's basically already the case. It's just that the appoval and review process is a bit... well, uncontrolled or unreliable. Therefore to have a sort of a commitee, a bunch of people who feel responsible for the net distro, would probably be a good idea. However, I think Chris and I shouldn't be involved much in this process at all. I can't speak for Chris, but I told him once on the phone, that from my point of view we are just maintainers for one component of the net distro, the Cygwin package itself (ignoring for now the other random packages which we maintain). Setting up a council or committee to approve or disprove apps means that the load is shared and there theoretically a consistent way for packages to be included. With both of us not being member of the comittee, IMO. A veto right would be ok but it should only be excersised when absolutely necessary (e. g. legal problems). Another approach might be to ask: Do the Linux vendors support it?. That is exactly an idea that I was going to propose. I was waiting to see where the discussion was going first. I was going to use actually veto ac-archive on this basis but then noticed that when I typed: up2date ac-archive ac-archive got pulled into my fedora-based system. So vetoing ac-archive because for this reason wouldn't work. Hmm. I don't like the idea. We should really keep in mind that 1. All Linux distros are different 2. Cygwin is not Linux Which distro of Linux will we use as role model? Red Hat? Fedora? SuSE? Debian? Connectiva? Which version? What if a package is in, say, Debian Woody but not in Red Hat 9? And why should that be a rule? Cygwin is not Linux. Cygwin doesn't support all function calls of a Linux system. Also some vanilla package maintainers ignore Windows based systems or even refuse to make any patches to accomodate them. Or some packages are incredibly difficult to port, sometimes because of the weird build system. These are good reasons for some packages being in Cygwin in favor of other packages which are usually used on Linux. E. g., we have Exim and ssmtp but not sendmail and postfix. After all, also the users might be different in what tools they use. If our net distro is in any way similar to a Linux distro, I guess it would be Debian or, perhaps, Fedora. And then, two questions should be raised and discussed: - How is the distro process controlled in Debian and Fedora and can we inherit them? - What criteria are used to refuse or accept a package and can we inherit them? I don't think that the current setup.exe is dumbed down. It just isn't really feature-rich. That's true. I'm wondering mostly about stuff like, for instance, jumping immediately to the package selection, keeping all other settings, including the mirror. This would allow running w/o having to retrieve the mirror list from cygwin.com. Or no questions about desktop icon and start menu entry. However, it *would* be nice to have a rpm based system, wouldn't it? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:41:54AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Mar 28 17:24, Christopher Faylor wrote: I can't speak for Corinna, but I would rather *not* have to be the bad guy or a single (double?) point of contact. I would rather have more community involvement. I'm already drowning in being the focal point for most cygwin bugs with help from only two other developers. I don't want to invent new things for me or Corinna to do, especially when there is no requirement for in-depth cygwin knowledge. I second the idea of a community driven cygwin net distribution and I would say that it's basically already the case. It's just that the appoval and review process is a bit... well, uncontrolled or unreliable. Therefore to have a sort of a commitee, a bunch of people who feel responsible for the net distro, would probably be a good idea. However, I think Chris and I shouldn't be involved much in this process at all. I can't speak for Chris, but I told him once on the phone, that from my point of view we are just maintainers for one component of the net distro, the Cygwin package itself (ignoring for now the other random packages which we maintain). Setting up a council or committee to approve or disprove apps means that the load is shared and there theoretically a consistent way for packages to be included. With both of us not being member of the comittee, IMO. A veto right would be ok but it should only be excersised when absolutely necessary (e. g. legal problems). Another approach might be to ask: Do the Linux vendors support it?. That is exactly an idea that I was going to propose. I was waiting to see where the discussion was going first. I was going to use actually veto ac-archive on this basis but then noticed that when I typed: up2date ac-archive ac-archive got pulled into my fedora-based system. So vetoing ac-archive because for this reason wouldn't work. Hmm. I don't like the idea. We should really keep in mind that 1. All Linux distros are different 2. Cygwin is not Linux Which distro of Linux will we use as role model? Red Hat? Fedora? SuSE? Debian? Connectiva? *any* distro. That is what I was looking for. If no distro contains ac-archive then there needs to be special dispensation. I don't think that the current setup.exe is dumbed down. It just isn't really feature-rich. That's true. I'm wondering mostly about stuff like, for instance, jumping immediately to the package selection, keeping all other settings, including the mirror. This would allow running w/o having to retrieve the mirror list from cygwin.com. Or no questions about desktop icon and start menu entry. Yep. That's just a simple matter of coding. However, it *would* be nice to have a rpm based system, wouldn't it? I guess. I shudder at the thought of what would be involved to get rpm working on a first time installation, though. cgf
On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
cgf wrote: I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the distribution, however. Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on these things. It could have rules like a package needs a simple majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion. I'd envision seven people on the committee. I have names in mind but the only two definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto power. I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. Chris, I'd really like to object to this SC idea, as most of us *have* exercised restraint while a select few have not. Why should the responsible maintainers be punished for someone's binge ITP'ing? I think we should keep it the way it is, perhaps with a little more of you laying the smack-down on anyone who is abusing it. I would respect a veto from you, Corinna, or Chuck, but the voting should still be left to the existing maintainers. After seeing what a steering committee has done to gcc, I'd be very hesitant to subject Cygwin to one. Please don't turn Cygwin decisions into political ones. Here's one idea to limit the binge ITP's: No more than 1 ITP per month unless approved by either you or Corinna. Another approach might be to ask: Do the Linux vendors support it?. Obviously this won't apply to strictly-windows applications. However, it is useful in that we are attempting to provide a unix/linux-like environment for Windows. If we are going to use any benchmark, this should be it. I'll end with some personal observations and opinions. I've been a RHL user since the 3.0.3 days, and I've seen the distro go from a small collection of packages to many hundreds of packages. Before that, I remember a time when an entire Slackware distribution fit on 20 floppies. Thus, I perceive our problems as being growing pains. I think understanding how the linux vendors handled these growing pains would be fruitful in how we approach this problem. I know some might not want to hear it, but if setup.exe can't handle the current load or scale in a sane manner, perhaps the problem lies with setup.exe itself? Look, setup.exe has served its purpose well, but now Windows comes with a feature-rich installer API. The last time I checked, this API is available for all versions of Windows since 95. Didn't someone broach the subject of possibly looking into NSIS installer (which, if I'm not mistaken, is a front-end for this API)? Aside from being more aesthetically pleasing, there are some features NSIS has which are quite nice and would mesh well with some of the extended needs now handled by post-install scripts. Choice is what it comes down to, and IMHO it should be the installer who needs to responsible for selecting the packages which best fit his/her needs. I'm sick and tired of seeing things being dumbed down for the benefit of the clueless at the expense of the power-user, and I know I'm not alone. Cheers, Nicholas
Re: On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:02:55PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: cgf wrote: I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the distribution, however. Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on these things. It could have rules like a package needs a simple majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion. I'd envision seven people on the committee. I have names in mind but the only two definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto power. I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. I'd really like to object to this SC idea, as most of us *have* exercised restraint while a select few have not. Why should the responsible maintainers be punished for someone's binge ITP'ing? I think we should keep it the way it is, perhaps with a little more of you laying the smack-down on anyone who is abusing it. I would respect a veto from you, Corinna, or Chuck, but the voting should still be left to the existing maintainers. After seeing what a steering committee has done to gcc, I'd be very hesitant to subject Cygwin to one. I guess we have differing views on how the steering committee affected gcc but this is really very different from the gcc (or gdb) steering committee. In general, I think they do a good job. However, just because I used a similar term to describe this doesn't mean that it will be exactly like gcc's steering committee. I'm coming to feel that their should be a higher bar for package entry into the release and don't think that any old package maintainer should get an equal vote in the process. Here's one idea to limit the binge ITP's: No more than 1 ITP per month unless approved by either you or Corinna. I can't speak for Corinna, but I would rather *not* have to be the bad guy or a single (double?) point of contact. I would rather have more community involvement. I'm already drowning in being the focal point for most cygwin bugs with help from only two other developers. I don't want to invent new things for me or Corinna to do, especially when there is no requirement for in-depth cygwin knowledge. Setting up a council or committee to approve or disprove apps means that the load is shared and there theoretically a consistent way for packages to be included. Another approach might be to ask: Do the Linux vendors support it?. That is exactly an idea that I was going to propose. I was waiting to see where the discussion was going first. I was going to use actually veto ac-archive on this basis but then noticed that when I typed: up2date ac-archive ac-archive got pulled into my fedora-based system. So vetoing ac-archive because for this reason wouldn't work. However, even with this rule, there is still a need for someone(s) to rule on the edge cases. I know some might not want to hear it, but if setup.exe can't handle the current load or scale in a sane manner, perhaps the problem lies with setup.exe itself? This was part of my motivation for asking if setup.exe development was stalled. I think that we are reaching a point where some innovation (and maybe a radical GUI redesign) is needed. Didn't someone broach the subject of possibly looking into NSIS installer (which, if I'm not mistaken, is a front-end for this API)? Yes, someone did. I have no problem with moving to a new installer interface but, given the current level of development, I don't see who's going to do the work. If we don't have a volunteer available to do the work of adapting NSIS but we do have volunteers available to keep setup.exe working then it's really a moot point. I'm sick and tired of seeing things being dumbed down for the benefit of the clueless at the expense of the power-user, and I know I'm not alone. I've always felt like this, actually. The first version of the installer was just a command-line version. I don't think that the current setup.exe is dumbed down. It just isn't really feature-rich. cgf
Re: On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
Yes, someone did. I have no problem with moving to a new installer interface but, given the current level of development, I don't see who's going to do the work. If we don't have a volunteer available to do the work of adapting NSIS but we do have volunteers available to keep setup.exe working then it's really a moot point. Has moving to one of the existing linux packaging systems been considered? This would I think require changing cygwin so first you download a minimum package that just includes cygwin, the installer, and the basic utilties and then we used an existing packaging system. I'm sure this has been suggested before, but is it considered bad because it's not windowsy enough, would require too large a switch-over, or just because no-one is willing to work on it? I ask mainly because I have tried delving into setup.exe a couple of times and have had serious trouble working my way around the code. It seems if cygwin's aim is to produce a unix-type system on windows, surely it would seem sensible to use a unix-type installation system? Chris
Re: On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]
--- chris jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, someone did. I have no problem with moving to a new installer Has moving to one of the existing linux packaging systems been considered? This would I think require changing cygwin so first you download a minimum package that just includes cygwin, the installer, and the basic utilties and then we used an existing packaging system. I'm sure this has been suggested before, but is it considered bad because it's not windowsy enough, would require too large a switch-over, or just because no-one is willing to work on it? One of the main problems is the assumptions a linux packaging system makes, for example that it can replace in-use executables. At a minimum it would need to be patched to warn about rebooting the way setup.exe does (rpm and dpkg are already available for cygwin, but not recommended for this reason). The biggest problem from a chicken-and-egg perspective is of course cygwin1.dll itself. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Is the ITP moratorium declared in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect? Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear. I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the distribution, however. Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on these things. It could have rules like a package needs a simple majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion. I'd envision seven people on the committee. I have names in mind but the only two definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto power. I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. cgf
RE: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Is the ITP moratorium declared in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect? Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear. I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the distribution, however. Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on these things. It could have rules like a package needs a simple majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion. I'd envision seven people on the committee. I have names in mind but the only two definites are really Corinna and me, both of whom would also have veto power. I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. Keep in mind that encouraging unofficial packages in this manner will: 1. Result in more packages that aren't reviewed by anybody (e.g. Harold) and hence don't meet necessary Cygwin requirements (esp. FHS). 2. Ergo will result in messages to cygwin@ of the template: software web-page package totally screws up Cygwin. 3. Ergo will raise CGF's blood pressure to dangerous levels. 4. Ergo will result in long, unproductive cygwin@ threads trying to tell the OP what one sentence could: You're on your own with these packages. I agree the lets add everything situation is problematic, but I don't think encouraging people to use a method that has the smell of semi-support is going to do anything but make matters worse.
Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Is the ITP moratorium declared in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect? Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear. I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. How do you submit something now that http://cygwin.com/ported.html doesn't contain any form ? I'd like to get smartmontools (http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/) added so it gets more testing, and when the time comes (after extensive testing from other users), Christian (the Windows porter) may become interested in submitting an ITP. -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
RE: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. Keep in mind that encouraging unofficial packages in this manner will: 1. Result in more packages that aren't reviewed by anybody (e.g. Harold) and hence don't meet necessary Cygwin requirements (esp. FHS). AFAIK none of the http://cygwin.com/ported.html were ever reviewed. 2. Ergo will result in messages to cygwin@ of the template: software web-page package totally screws up Cygwin. 4. Ergo will result in long, unproductive cygwin@ threads trying to tell the OP what one sentence could: You're on your own with these packages. For 2 and 4 you can make it clear on the above URL that such packages aren't official, and any discussion about them should take place on the application's mailing-list or directly with the authors. -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:23:42PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Is the ITP moratorium declared in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect? Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear. I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. How do you submit something now that http://cygwin.com/ported.html doesn't contain any form ? It never contained a form. You use the form on the main cygwin page. cgf
Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:30:51PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com which can be used to advertise packages that aren't quite up to snuff for the cygwin release. I think we have accepted a couple of packages here which really only deserve to be advertised on the web site. Keep in mind that encouraging unofficial packages in this manner will: 1. Result in more packages that aren't reviewed by anybody (e.g. Harold) and hence don't meet necessary Cygwin requirements (esp. FHS). AFAIK none of the http://cygwin.com/ported.html were ever reviewed. 2. Ergo will result in messages to cygwin@ of the template: software web-page package totally screws up Cygwin. 4. Ergo will result in long, unproductive cygwin@ threads trying to tell the OP what one sentence could: You're on your own with these packages. For 2 and 4 you can make it clear on the above URL that such packages aren't official, and any discussion about them should take place on the application's mailing-list or directly with the authors. The web page already says: The packags below are not officially supported Cygwin packages. If you have problems with any of these packages, please contact the owner of the package for advice. If this is not feasible, please make it clear that you are referring to a third-party package when asking for help in the cygwin mailing list. cgf
Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:23:42PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: How do you submit something now that http://cygwin.com/ported.html doesn't contain any form ? It never contained a form. You use the form on the main cygwin page. Definitely not my day. I'll suggest Bruce (the main author) and Christian (the Windows porter) to submit it. -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:27:01PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Is the ITP moratorium declared in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect? Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear. I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the distribution, however. Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on Wow. I can't believe I let a gdb slip in there. That must have been confusing. I guess everyone got what I meant. I've been reading about the (re)formation of the gdb steering committee and have spent way to much time dealing with the political issues involved. I obviously still had gdb on my brain when I wrote the above. cgf
Re: ITP moratorium
cgf wrote: We've had a flood of package ITPs and a missing package maintainer. I'm imposing a moratorium on ITPs for now. Thank you!!! I was wondering when someone was going to stop the insanity ;-). Cheers, Nicholas
Re: ITP moratorium
Christopher Faylor wrote: I'm imposing a moratorium on ITPs for now. Does this mean no new ITPs or does this even mean that ITPs which are already in the pipeline are stalled? Andreas. -- http://www.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/
Re: ITP moratorium
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:02:48AM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: But taking a close look at article.db, it seems everything that goes to ports.html was or is in index.html ? articles.db is the master source for the software and news. You can always check the web pages out via cvs if you are curious about how things work. Example: Title: BerkeleyDB 4.0 Url:http://batousai.sdf-eu.org/BerkeleyDB/BerkeleyDB-4.0-cygwin.tar.gz A more recent version is in Cygwin. Not to mention the link is broken. ...which was *exactly* what you were going to research. Why are you arguing the point again? Frankly, I'd just get rid of all such news (the last was 6 months ago, and most are from 3-4 years ago) and only keep your New Cygwin DLL announcements. Or move it to a separate page, because there are so many ported application that it doesn't make much sense to only announce a dozen. Since you didn't provide a diff, I just quickly went through the ported software list and found that all of the links, except the one that you mentioned are still active. I didn't try to determine if the links still provided a cygwin version of a package but I am satisified that the list still serves its purpose. Maybe we should start suggesting that people with random of-use-to-only-a-few packages should just maintain a web site and submit the package to this list.
Re: ITP moratorium
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 07:55:17PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:02:48AM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: But taking a close look at article.db, it seems everything that goes to ports.html was or is in index.html ? articles.db is the master source for the software and news. You can always check the web pages out via cvs if you are curious about how things work. Example: Title: BerkeleyDB 4.0 Url:http://batousai.sdf-eu.org/BerkeleyDB/BerkeleyDB-4.0-cygwin.tar.gz A more recent version is in Cygwin. Not to mention the link is broken. ...which was *exactly* what you were going to research. Why are you arguing the point again? Yes, but I was going to edit ports.html, and didn't know that editing article.db will also change such news. That was two messages ago. This isn't an argument. I was telling you what you should offer patches against. Since you didn't provide a diff, I just quickly went through the ported software list and found that all of the links, except the one that you mentioned are still active. Or redirecting to another. I didn't try to determine if the links still provided a cygwin version of a package but I am satisified that the list still serves its purpose. Exactly. 1- FreeCIV seems to have moved to Windows and deprecated Cygwin: http://www.freeciv.org/ftp/packages/windows-X/ http://www.freeciv.org/ftp/packages/windows/ For those reading at home, let's recap this discussion: 1) You send email saying It's a shame that http://cygwin.com/ported.html contains so many broken or outdated links. Can I go through it and submit a diff. 2) I say Yes, but any diffs should be against the source file for this page, however, which is article.db. 3) You say (paraphrasing) I didn't know that this was the source page. For instance, here's an example of something that is wrong. 4) I mention that this is what you were going to research, hadn't submitted a diff. 5) You are still hung up on the fact that you didn't know about article.db. And, *now* you are start submitting updates but still not in the form of a diff. So, ok. Nevermind. Don't worry about it. This is too painful a transaction for such a minor task. cgf
Re: ITP moratorium
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:02:48AM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: But taking a close look at article.db, it seems everything that goes to ports.html was or is in index.html ? articles.db is the master source for the software and news. You can always check the web pages out via cvs if you are curious about how things work. Example: Title: BerkeleyDB 4.0 Url:http://batousai.sdf-eu.org/BerkeleyDB/BerkeleyDB-4.0-cygwin.tar.gz A more recent version is in Cygwin. Not to mention the link is broken. ...which was *exactly* what you were going to research. Why are you arguing the point again? Yes, but I was going to edit ports.html, and didn't know that editing article.db will also change such news. Since you didn't provide a diff, I just quickly went through the ported software list and found that all of the links, except the one that you mentioned are still active. Or redirecting to another. I didn't try to determine if the links still provided a cygwin version of a package but I am satisified that the list still serves its purpose. Exactly. 1- FreeCIV seems to have moved to Windows and deprecated Cygwin: http://www.freeciv.org/ftp/packages/windows-X/ http://www.freeciv.org/ftp/packages/windows/ And http://www.freeciv.org/ftp/packages/windows/freeciv-1.14.1-README.txt mentions: There exists a third way to run Freeciv on Microsoft Windows: under Cygwin (www.cygwin.com), using an X server (e.g. XFree86 as distributed with Cygwin). This requires compiling Freeciv from source; it is not recommended, except as a portability test. 2- And what about licenses ? txt2pdf is shareware: txt2pdf is shareware. That means that you're welcome to try it and use it as much as you want for 30 days. If after that time you like txt2pdf or would like to continue using it, we ask you please to purchase it or remove it from your system. 3- http://soren.lund.org/cadaver/: I announced this page on the Cygwin site on August 7th 2001, and on October 26th it had received more than 5000 visitors! Yes, and he didn't update it anymore. The current release is 0.22.0. 4- http://www.vigor.nu/dxpc/: dxpc-win32-static.zip Win32 binary, statically linked, compiled with Cygwin32 beta 20 Not to mention cygwin1.dll is included in http://www.vigor.nu/dxpc/3.8.0/dxpc-win32-static.zip, and the sources aren't on the site. http://clip.dia.fi.upm.es/Software/Ciao/: http://clip.dia.fi.upm.es/Mail/ciao-users/0261.html And not to mention most sites don't have a single word about Cygwin. http://www.geocities.com/kirellii and http://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/download/cygwin.en.html are the best in this respect. Maybe we should start suggesting that people with random of-use-to-only-a-few packages should just maintain a web site and submit the package to this list. -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
Re: ITP moratorium
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 07:55:17PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:02:48AM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: But taking a close look at article.db, it seems everything that goes to ports.html was or is in index.html ? articles.db is the master source for the software and news. You can always check the web pages out via cvs if you are curious about how things work. Example: Title: BerkeleyDB 4.0 Url:http://batousai.sdf-eu.org/BerkeleyDB/BerkeleyDB-4.0-cygwin.tar.gz A more recent version is in Cygwin. Not to mention the link is broken. ...which was *exactly* what you were going to research. Why are you arguing the point again? Yes, but I was going to edit ports.html, and didn't know that editing article.db will also change such news. That was two messages ago. This isn't an argument. I was telling you what you should offer patches against. Since you didn't provide a diff, I just quickly went through the ported software list and found that all of the links, except the one that you mentioned are still active. Or redirecting to another. I didn't try to determine if the links still provided a cygwin version of a package but I am satisified that the list still serves its purpose. Exactly. 1- FreeCIV seems to have moved to Windows and deprecated Cygwin: http://www.freeciv.org/ftp/packages/windows-X/ http://www.freeciv.org/ftp/packages/windows/ For those reading at home, let's recap this discussion: 1) You send email saying It's a shame that http://cygwin.com/ported.html contains so many broken or outdated links. Can I go through it and submit a diff. It contained so many a few months ago, but you probably removed all. My fault for not reviewing it. Now it just contained one. Others are just redirections. 4) I mention that this is what you were going to research, hadn't submitted a diff. Because it doesn't look right to send updates to a file that will also update the news and break them, right ? What could I do ? Let's say I update foo 0.1.0 to point to a new 0.2.0 binary release. Then http://cygwin.com/ported.html will look right, but the news will break, since 0.2.0 wasn't available at the announcement time. There are other cases. It's like if I were going to update links in a ChangeLog (the news entries) file. It's old stuff. What I can and should do is update those that are in README (ports.html). 5) You are still hung up on the fact that you didn't know about article.db. And, *now* you are start submitting updates but still not in the form of a diff. article.db isn't the problem. I could edit it and submit a diff. The problem is ported.html being generated from the news entries. And besides the broken link, I didn't submit any updates, just pointed out things that you or any Cygwin developer could look at, like the shareware license, the inclusion of cygwin1.dll without the sources etc. But I agree with you that such packages that are going to be used by a few people have a place in ports.html. So, ok. Nevermind. Don't worry about it. This is too painful a transaction for such a minor task. -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
Re: ITP moratorium
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:56:13PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: [snip] But it's also a shame that http://cygwin.com/ported.html contains so many broken or outdated links. Can I go through it and submit a diff ? You most certainly can. Whether it'll be accepted is another story -- I'll let CGF answer that one. Oh, I'd *much* rather have an outdated, inaccurate web page at cygwin.com. It fits in with my image. But seriously, of course we want to know about changes. Any diffs should be against the source file for this page, however, which is article.db. These days the only package submissions we get for cygwin are 1) spam, 2) commercial software which has nothing to do with cygwin, and 3) bug reports or enquiries about cygwin. cgf
Re: ITP moratorium
Christopher Faylor wrote: It is rather a shame that we have a package like coreutils going unclaimed while people are busily proposing other packages which would be of general utility to only a tiny percentage of cygwin users. You did get a volunteer for coreutils when you asked: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwinm=107731720617790 Brian
Re: ITP moratorium
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:55:04PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: It is rather a shame that we have a package like coreutils going unclaimed while people are busily proposing other packages which would be of general utility to only a tiny percentage of cygwin users. You did get a volunteer for coreutils when you asked: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwinm=107731720617790 I've gotten a couple of volunteers over the years but so far there is still no coreutils package in the distribution. cgf
Re: ITP moratorium
Agreed 100%. But it's also a shame that http://cygwin.com/ported.html contains so many broken or outdated links. Can I go through it and submit a diff ? And maybe someone should make a cygwinfind.net, cygwinpackages.net, or something outside Cywin to host such packages. On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: We've had a flood of package ITPs and a missing package maintainer. I'm imposing a moratorium on ITPs for now. I think I'm beginning to detect the sign of breakage in the process and possibly am detecting the fact that we are overloading setup.exe. It is rather a shame that we have a package like coreutils going unclaimed while people are busily proposing other packages which would be of general utility to only a tiny percentage of cygwin users. Maybe it's time to sweep through the list again and see if we are missing any maintainers, too. Corinna did you do this last time? -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
Re: ITP moratorium
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 03:56:13PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote: [snip] But it's also a shame that http://cygwin.com/ported.html contains so many broken or outdated links. Can I go through it and submit a diff ? You most certainly can. Whether it'll be accepted is another story -- I'll let CGF answer that one. Oh, I'd *much* rather have an outdated, inaccurate web page at cygwin.com. It fits in with my image. But seriously, of course we want to know about changes. Any diffs should be against the source file for this page, however, which is article.db. OK, I thought it was ports.html. But taking a close look at article.db, it seems everything that goes to ports.html was or is in index.html ? Example: Title: BerkeleyDB 4.0 Url:http://batousai.sdf-eu.org/BerkeleyDB/BerkeleyDB-4.0-cygwin.tar.gz A more recent version is in Cygwin. Not to mention the link is broken. Frankly, I'd just get rid of all such news (the last was 6 months ago, and most are from 3-4 years ago) and only keep your New Cygwin DLL announcements. Or move it to a separate page, because there are so many ported application that it doesn't make much sense to only announce a dozen. -- http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
