Re: Pending packages status (31 Mar 2003)
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 10:31:49PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: I second par. I'm in favor of this, too. Ok, that makes three votes so far - I've uploaded it. Lapo, please, send an announcement.
RE: Pending packages status (31 Mar 2003)
You have my vote for splint. -Samrobb
Re: Pending packages status (31 Mar 2003)
I second par. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ok, to upload grace ? was Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar2003)
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote: In that case: Ready for upload to s.r.c as soon as someone with the relevant permissions has a moment. BTW, keep the URLs in the message: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Uploaded. Please, send the announcement in a few hours. Thanks!
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
Volker Quetschke wrote: Hi! 1. grace date : 25 Nov 2002 version: 5.1.12-1 status : updated package available for review notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html votes : 2 (Lapo and Robert) url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Max did a review in: ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url mentioned above. OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes: - The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on reinstall is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves. - You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This would make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed documentation. Neither of these are critical - the current packages could be released as-is - but both of the above are minor improvements that should be considered. Max.
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
Max Bowsher wrote: Volker Quetschke wrote: Hi! 1. grace date : 25 Nov 2002 version: 5.1.12-1 status : updated package available for review notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html votes : 2 (Lapo and Robert) url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Max did a review in: ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url mentioned above. OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes: - The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on reinstall is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves. IIRC, this is a major flaw. Package configuration files are to not be overwritten upon reinstall. You need to use postinstall scripts to install initial configuration files and not overwrite exsiting configuration files. - You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This would make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed documentation. Uhm, you mean /usr/doc/grace or do you mean /usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README? Neither of these are critical - the current packages could be released as-is - but both of the above are minor improvements that should be considered. Not following these conventions are critical IMNSHO. Earnie.
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
Volker Quetschke wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! 1. grace date : 25 Nov 2002 version: 5.1.12-1 status : updated package available for review notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html votes : 2 (Lapo and Robert) url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Max did a review in: ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url mentioned above. OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes: - The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on reinstall is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves. Good idea, done!. Actually, now Earnie mentions it, someone *might* want to have all-users configuration. Better do the install .default files, and copy into place iff not already in existance thing. - You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This would make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed documentation. I forgot that the README gets copied to /usr/doc/grace-5.1.12/ , its original place is /usr/grace/. I will patch /usr/grace/doc into this file. Done! You got one occurrence, but missed the other. 'doc/FAQ.html' should become '/usr/grace/doc/FAQ.html' Max.
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I send the last mail before I read your mail Earnie. | 1. grace | ... | Max did a review in: | ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html | | and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url | mentioned above. | | OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes: | | - The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on | reinstall | is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest | putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves. | | IIRC, this is a major flaw. Package configuration files are to not be | overwritten upon reinstall. You need to use postinstall scripts to | install initial configuration files and not overwrite exsiting | configuration files. If you plan to change the default settings you should use user defined settings, but yes I see the point. | - You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This | would | make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed | documentation. | | Uhm, you mean /usr/doc/grace or do you mean /usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README? The original /usr/grace/README which gets copied to /usr/doc/grace-5.1.12 only talks about the doc directory, grace.README has the full information in it. | Neither of these are critical - the current packages could be released | as-is - but both of the above are minor improvements that should be | considered. | | | Not following these conventions are critical IMNSHO. Ok, if I find a few cycles I will implement the postinstall script. Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+cITqPTXJup+KeF0RAmPOAKCKPFWgW2uFEUF4LzoIfHj3rGJHWwCggyUY B4avT/5BMGWeXdHjLl1Egs8= =E7ed -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! |1. grace |... |OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following |notes: | |- The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on |reinstall is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read |that. I suggest putting it in the comments actually in the files |themselves. |Good idea, done!. | Actually, now Earnie mentions it, someone *might* want to have all-users | configuration. I implemented a postinstall script. |- You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This |would make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed |documentation. | |I forgot that the README gets copied to /usr/doc/grace-5.1.12/ , its |original place is /usr/grace/. I will patch /usr/grace/doc into this |file. Done! | | You got one occurrence, but missed the other. 'doc/FAQ.html' should become | '/usr/grace/doc/FAQ.html' Hmm, I thought the: - -Recommended reading: +Recommended reading: ( files are in /usr/grace/ ) would be enough for that. The last changed version (still with doc/FAQ.html) is uploaded. Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+cJjLPTXJup+KeF0RAq4+AKDCCCwG/TkxuLnx/iy5wVCQO3yfVwCgkQ1B yXsjhrkxOaWd7WKTViyttkc= =rZvq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
Volker Quetschke wrote: Hmm, I thought the: - -Recommended reading: +Recommended reading: ( files are in /usr/grace/ ) would be enough for that. Here is the file as it is now, |-indented: | GRACE - GRaphing, Advanced Computation and Exploration of data | | Recommended reading: ( files are in /usr/grace/ ) But they aren't! | | COPYRIGHT - legal stuff | LICENSE - license terms (GPL) | CHANGES - chronological list of changes These three are in the same dir as README | doc/FAQ.html- frequently asked questions (in HTML format) This is in /usr/grace/doc | arch/os_name/README - system-specific important notes I'm not sure if this even exists for Cygwin. | The installation procedure is covered in the User's Guide | (in the /usr/grace/doc directory). Max.
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 |Hmm, I thought the: | |- -Recommended reading: |+Recommended reading: ( files are in /usr/grace/ ) | |would be enough for that. | | Here is the file as it is now, |-indented: | | | GRACE - GRaphing, Advanced Computation and Exploration of data | | | | Recommended reading: ( files are in /usr/grace/ ) | | But they aren't! Sorry, I thought they get installed, but they don't. | | arch/os_name/README - system-specific important notes | | I'm not sure if this even exists for Cygwin. It does, but grace.README holds all the information, it would only confuse. (The directory is in the source archive) The version that I'm currently uploading contains this README: - ~ GRACE - GRaphing, Advanced Computation and Exploration of data Recommended reading: /usr/doc/Cygwin/grace-5.1.12.README - Notes for the Cygwin package COPYRIGHT - legal stuff LICENSE - license terms (GPL) CHANGES - chronological list of changes /usr/grace/doc/FAQ.html - frequently asked questions (in HTML format) The installation procedure is covered in the User's Guide (in the /usr/grace/doc directory). - Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+cKPaPTXJup+KeF0RAmNYAKDH5JDhnn3CEIl5zJRlTYmbGHcaoACgo2/i xlk9JlDKgC7paYyO6ycZ4/A= =G+Jd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Volker Quetschke wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I send the last mail before I read your mail Earnie. | 1. grace | ... | Max did a review in: | ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html | | and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url | mentioned above. | | OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes: | | - The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on | reinstall | is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest | putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves. | | IIRC, this is a major flaw. Package configuration files are to not be | overwritten upon reinstall. You need to use postinstall scripts to | install initial configuration files and not overwrite exsiting | configuration files. If you plan to change the default settings you should use user defined settings, but yes I see the point. What if you are a system administrator and want to change settings for all users at once? I agree with Earnie. | - You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This | would | make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed | documentation. | | Uhm, you mean /usr/doc/grace or do you mean /usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README? The original /usr/grace/README which gets copied to /usr/doc/grace-5.1.12 only talks about the doc directory, grace.README has the full information in it. | Neither of these are critical - the current packages could be released | as-is - but both of the above are minor improvements that should be | considered. | | Not following these conventions are critical IMNSHO. Ok, if I find a few cycles I will implement the postinstall script. Volker Hope the following chunk helps: #!/bin/sh [ ! -e /etc/gracerc ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.default /etc/gracerc [ ! -e /etc/gracerc.user ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.user.default /etc/gracerc.user And include /etc/gracerc.default and /etc/gracerc.user.default in the package (those can get overwritten). Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk! -- /usr/games/fortune
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Igor, | Hope the following chunk helps: | | #!/bin/sh | [ ! -e /etc/gracerc ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.default /etc/gracerc | [ ! -e /etc/gracerc.user ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.user.default /etc/gracerc.user | | And include /etc/gracerc.default and /etc/gracerc.user.default in the | package (those can get overwritten). too late ;-) the version which got uploaded half an hour ago already contains a similar postinstall script. Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+cKzyPTXJup+KeF0RAsOjAKCtlSwUK/0ojAn9OXERC3PBMLQLDgCbBDHY G+OE8sk4PMVbPeowtcP8sCc= =v1S0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
Volker Quetschke wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Igor, Hope the following chunk helps: #!/bin/sh [ ! -e /etc/gracerc ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.default /etc/gracerc [ ! -e /etc/gracerc.user ] cp -a /etc/gracerc.user.default /etc/gracerc.user And include /etc/gracerc.default and /etc/gracerc.user.default in the package (those can get overwritten). too late ;-) the version which got uploaded half an hour ago already contains a similar postinstall script. Actually, maybe the postinstall *should* use -e, not -f - just in case someone wants to do some symlink trickery. Max.
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! | Actually, maybe the postinstall *should* use -e, not -f - just in case | someone wants to do some symlink trickery. Changed and uploaded! Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+cLF9PTXJup+KeF0RAqjfAKC3j8oA1baikh7ypCz2CNzCKx1x7wCeOHDi Sb8DrLsf8J8x0QZt7BzoTr8= =RQFr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
Volker Quetschke wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! Actually, maybe the postinstall *should* use -e, not -f - just in case someone wants to do some symlink trickery. Changed and uploaded! In that case: Ready for upload to s.r.c as soon as someone with the relevant permissions has a moment. BTW, keep the URLs in the message: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Max.
Ok, to upload grace ? was Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote: Volker Quetschke wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! Actually, maybe the postinstall *should* use -e, not -f - just in case someone wants to do some symlink trickery. Changed and uploaded! In that case: Ready for upload to s.r.c as soon as someone with the relevant permissions has a moment. BTW, keep the URLs in the message: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Max.
Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! | 1. grace | | date : 25 Nov 2002 | version: 5.1.12-1 | status : updated package available for review | notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html | reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html | votes : 2 (Lapo and Robert) | url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 | http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 | http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Max did a review in: ~ http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00267.html and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url mentioned above. Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+b4UXPTXJup+KeF0RAqIlAKDOR4+VwYFNpK+OFTtzbeqzZMtflgCZAduH xr73aa0wX+sBwUiAoIOcWn0= =MBtt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pending packages status
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! | 1. grace | | date : 25 Nov 2002 | version: 5.1.10-1 | status : not reviewed | notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html | votes : 2 (Lapo and Robert) | url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1.tar.bz2 | http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1-src.tar.bz2 | http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are: ~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 ~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 ~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+a1ZXPTXJup+KeF0RAvfoAJ9yaTqRlmzu7jjHA0FOs13mfoaRIwCgvPSf jme7ItBWUUUmZUK+exVJcyA= =PQph -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote: Max: IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool commands would be better. Earnie: A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require autotools. IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly is autoconf mandated. The configure script exists for the non-maintainer. Max: You're right - I just hate the *huge* patches that result from this. Maybe the maintainer can help us here. I'm not sure that he regenerated the auto stuff. I thought that he might have done this based on the presence of the autom4te.cache dir. Also since there is no patch we can only guess why was the regeneration, if any, necessary. Btw for mc I needed to regenerate and this didn't add too much weight to the patch.
Re: grace Review (Re: Pending packages status)
Volker Quetschke wrote: Hi Max, I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are: ~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 ~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 ~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint I've never used grace, but it's a pity for a package to have votes but no review, so I thought I'd take a look at the packaging. Thanks! No problem. Here are some issues I found: You say * No patches necessary. in usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README, but you do patch examples/Makefile and examples/dotest Ah, well, these patches only fix the make check command, this is not needed if you don't want to do a make check. I'll change that line in the README. /usr/grace/gracerc.user will be overwritten on uninstall/upgrade. Based on the comments in it, that might be ok, but it might be nice to add an extra comment indicating this. Yes, I will add a hint that /usr/grace/gracerc and /usr/grace/gracerc.user will be overwritten. If the user wants to keep his/her settings between updates he should put the gracerc and gracerc.user in a ./grace/ directory. I don't think changing the default editor to nano is right. I think you should leave it alone, and everyone can set GRACE_EDITOR to their own preference. I certainly don't think grace should depend on nano. [Yes, I am a vim addict] Ok, ok, I will change that back to the default and use the GRACE_EDITOR variable from now on ;-) Good, good, and good! Don't forget to remove the nano dependency from setup.hint There is some html documentation in the source package. How about installing it? It's installed, it is in /usr/grace/doc, available also from grace with the help menu. Unfortunately I had to change the helpbrowser to lynx because there is no XmHTML or libhelp package in cygwin at the moment and one of those libraries is needed for the internal helpviewer. Oh, ok. Perhaps you could s!doc!/usr/grace/doc!g in the README, so that grace newbies (like me) are more likely to find it? Max.
Re: grace Review (Re: Pending packages status)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! |I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are: |~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2 |~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2 |~ http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint The urls above now points to the new packages. Volker - -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+a3z3PTXJup+KeF0RAp17AKCLAcPqjTFraw9GfwuR77AeIYRNzwCg0SZB ibq0035glLcSt3aUiaX6c/Q= =it2S -END PGP SIGNATURE-
LPRng was Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: 3. LPRng date : 21 Jan 2003 version: 3.8.19-1 status : reviewed; updated package available notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html votes : 3 (Corinna, Joshua and Volker) url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2 https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint It looks like this is ready as long as someone has a supported printer to verfify that it actually works. I've just verified the source package. There are some problems: 1) An autom4te.cache dir is present - should be removed. 2) There is an extra space on line 2242 (the place in the configure script which produces an error - very easy to fix. 3) No CYGWIN-PATCHES dir and no patch. The maintainer obviously regenerated the configuration files and i think if not anything else this requires a patch.
Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status
3. LPRng date : 21 Jan 2003 version: 3.8.19-1 status : reviewed; updated package available notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html votes : 3 (Corinna, Joshua and Volker) url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2 https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: It looks like this is ready as long as someone has a supported printer to verfify that it actually works. Pavel Tsekov wrote: I've just verified the source package. There are some problems: 1) An autom4te.cache dir is present - should be removed. 2) There is an extra space on line 2242 (the place in the configure script which produces an error - very easy to fix. 3) No CYGWIN-PATCHES dir and no patch. The maintainer obviously regenerated the configuration files and i think if not anything else this requires a patch. IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool commands would be better. Max.
Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status
Earnie Boyd wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool commands would be better. A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require autotools. IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly is autoconf mandated. The configure script exists for the non-maintainer. You're right - I just hate the *huge* patches that result from this. Max.
Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status
Max Bowsher wrote: IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool commands would be better. A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require autotools. IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly is autoconf mandated. The configure script exists for the non-maintainer. You're right - I just hate the *huge* patches that result from this. Rabbit, meet the rabbit hole. Rob
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: Pavel: :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is. Max: Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your preference :}. Max: Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version. On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current practice. cgf: I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible. I like being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject if this is a recent release or not. Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think we should continue to work that way. Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine. I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine: Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1 Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release. Are you sure? Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem. Here's the package md5sum... Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum . Is that newer, or older than the mythical fourth release? Yeah, sorry about that. I gave you the md5sum of the fourth pre-release. I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?). However, you can't download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded... This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to test: releases on the cygwin mirrors. I *need* to keep pre-release and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or I'll hork off my testers... As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been setup-installable. Thus, no problems (except for communication issues, as described above). I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing. --Chuck IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk! -- /usr/games/fortune
Re: Pending packages status
Charles Wilson wrote: Pavel: :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is. Max: Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your preference :}. No, this wasn't me. Max: Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version. On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current practice. cgf: I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible. I like being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject if this is a recent release or not. Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think we should continue to work that way. Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine. I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine: Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1 Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release. Are you sure? Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem. Here's the package md5sum... Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum . Is that newer, or older than the mythical fourth release? Yeah, sorry about that. I gave you the md5sum of the fourth pre-release. I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?). However, you can't download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded... This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to test: releases on the cygwin mirrors. I *need* to keep pre-release and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or I'll hork off my testers... As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been setup-installable. Thus, no problems (except for communication issues, as described above). I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing. I have a suggestion: foo-1.0-0.1 foo-1.0-0.2 foo-1.0-0.3 foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1, and sends a 'Please upload' email Max.
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:16PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: Pavel: :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is. Max: Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your preference :}. Max: Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version. On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current practice. cgf: I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible. I like being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject if this is a recent release or not. Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think we should continue to work that way. Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine. I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine: I'm sure that everyone here gets this point. There is a *potential* that the same need that we have for incrementing our standard releases from -1 to -2, etc. might be an issue for cygwin-apps. As is said, above I don't remember any confusion caused by the current practice. I suspect that's because the class of user here (at least for those doing the review) is a few thousand steps above the standard cygwin user and can manage with things like date and time rather than -1, -2, -3. This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to test: releases on the cygwin mirrors. I *need* to keep pre-release and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or I'll hork off my testers... So, when you upload your changes, adjust the version to the next released version. However, I don't really care. If you think this is the only way for you to manage your libtool issues, then use whatever works. As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been setup-installable. Thus, no problems (except for communication issues, as described above). I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing. The cygwin user base != the cygwin-apps maintainers. We are supposed to be a breed apart. That's why I don't like the idea of adding, IMO, silly rules that every How does it look now release prior to the official release needs to be incremented on the off chance that someone here will be terminally confused and not realize that they might not have the most up-to-date version. I can easily imagine the I can't review this because you didn't bump the number from -1 to -2 cropping up. That just delays the process of getting a package released. So, as usual, I opt for flexibility (anyone want to guess at my political leanings?). I don't think anyone should be forced to use this method. If it makes people more comfortable to bump their versions, then have at it. cgf
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: I have a suggestion: foo-1.0-0.1 foo-1.0-0.2 foo-1.0-0.3 foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1, and sends a 'Please upload' email That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will grok the .n usage. cgf
Re: Pending packages status
Igor Pechtchanski wrote: IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release... Now, I can *live* with that (but not especially *like* it). What about pre-test updated versions (after a package has been officially launched and is part of the dist)? [Also, 'REL = 0.x' might break the generic package build script; I'm not sure] Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS snapshots. So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the packages on the cygwin mirrors. Yes, there are ways around even THAT. Let VER change as it must, but make sure that all pre-test RELs are 0.x. Then bump to -1,2,3,whatever when uploading to the cygwin mirrors. But that seems like an awful lot of trouble, simply because a few people prefer (a) initial official packages start at REL=1, and (b) official packages progress in monotonic, uniform REL #s with no gaps. IMO, that's simply insane -- no linux distribution does that. You might see foo-1.3.2-2 in rawhide, followed by -4, then -9, and then -11 shows up in the next official Red Hat. Nobody complains. And the post-release security fix for foo is -13, not -12. Big Freaking Deal. Oh, crap. Are we in another interminable packaging debate? --Chuck
Re: Pending packages status
Max: Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your preference :}. No, this wasn't me. Sorry, I didn't mean to misattribute. I have a suggestion: foo-1.0-0.1 foo-1.0-0.2 foo-1.0-0.3 foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1, and sends a 'Please upload' email Mebbe, but see my other message. --Chuck
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote: Igor Pechtchanski wrote: IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release... Now, I can *live* with that (but not especially *like* it). What about pre-test updated versions (after a package has been officially launched and is part of the dist)? [Also, 'REL = 0.x' might break the generic package build script; I'm not sure] Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS snapshots. So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the packages on the cygwin mirrors. Umm, Chuck, the above suggestion was intended only for different pre-releases of the package with the *same* VER number. If you have different VER numbers, you already have a way of distinguishing various pre-releases, and no need to do anything extra to that end. Yes, there are ways around even THAT. Let VER change as it must, but make sure that all pre-test RELs are 0.x. Then bump to -1,2,3,whatever when uploading to the cygwin mirrors. But that seems like an awful lot of trouble, simply because a few people prefer (a) initial official packages start at REL=1, and (b) official packages progress in monotonic, uniform REL #s with no gaps. IMO, that's simply insane -- no linux distribution does that. You might see foo-1.3.2-2 in rawhide, followed by -4, then -9, and then -11 shows up in the next official Red Hat. Nobody complains. And the post-release security fix for foo is -13, not -12. Big Freaking Deal. Oh, crap. Are we in another interminable packaging debate? --Chuck FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to the absense of release notes for packages in setup. If there were a way to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is. This is more than just a so patch setup issue, since there is no connection currently between upset/setup and the announcements. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk! -- /usr/games/fortune
Re: Pending packages status
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: I have a suggestion: foo-1.0-0.1 foo-1.0-0.2 foo-1.0-0.3 foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1, and sends a 'Please upload' email That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will grok the .n usage. IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions at all. And upset may not order -0.* correctly, but it doesn't choke. I have a package whose release is 0.max currently in my local upset tree. Max.
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:37PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: I have a suggestion: foo-1.0-0.1 foo-1.0-0.2 foo-1.0-0.3 foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1, and sends a 'Please upload' email That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will grok the .n usage. IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions at all. Huh? I haven't looked at the code recently but unless there has been a change, setup does understand version numbers. At the very least, it reads them from files on disk when there is no setup.ini file. cgf
Re: Pending packages status
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 06:44, Max Bowsher wrote: IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions at all. And upset may not order -0.* correctly, but it doesn't choke. I have a package whose release is 0.max currently in my local upset tree. It parses the package names. It won't choke, but it won't sort correctly consistently. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Pending packages status
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:37PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote: I have a suggestion: foo-1.0-0.1 foo-1.0-0.2 foo-1.0-0.3 foo-1.0-0.4 ok, it's ready foo-1.0-1 maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1, and sends a 'Please upload' email That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will grok the .n usage. IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions at all. Huh? I haven't looked at the code recently but unless there has been a change, setup does understand version numbers. At the very least, it reads them from files on disk when there is no setup.ini file. Ah. Seems IDRC. Max.
Re: Pending packages status
Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS snapshots. So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the packages on the cygwin mirrors. Umm, Chuck, the above suggestion was intended only for different pre-releases of the package with the *same* VER number. If you have different VER numbers, you already have a way of distinguishing various pre-releases, and no need to do anything extra to that end. True -- but I brought it up simply to emphasize that the problem space is larger than I sensed was being considered. I wanted to head off the argument that pre-releases (or pretests) following a given version be numbered using tags to the preceeding release. e.g. foo-1.3.2-3 is official Somebody was SURE to suggest that pretests for -4 be named foo-1.3.2-3a -3b, -3c, etc. so, I was trying to point out the problem THAT naming scheme runs into when I'm working on pre-release versions of foo-1.3.3. Should they follow the -1.3.2-3X rule (since they 'succeed' 1.3.2-3), or the -0.x rule (since they will precede the first official release of 1.3.3)? BLECH. *Yet another amendment to the rule*. All because it's too difficult to write rules that cover every conceivable case. Sometimes, it's okay to just say Rules? We don' need no steenking rules! and just tell folks to use their brains. As cgf says, maintainers are supposed be a cut above, and should be able to handle these issues in the way most appropriate for THEIR package. [Yes, I also recognize the political implications of this statement; you *don't* want to get me started on that. I might start quoting the Federalist papers and George Washington's farewell address -- and nobody wants that; incl. me. I've got real work to do...] Heck, they might use one method for their foo package, and a different method for their baz package. Fine by me -- as long as it makes sense. I'm sorry I didn't fully explain what I was trying to get across with that libool-DATE paragraph; I had hoped the problems would be clear by implication, so I wasn't explicit. I should have been. FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to the absense of release notes for packages in setup. If there were a way to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is. This is more than just a so patch setup issue, since there is no connection currently between upset/setup and the announcements. Well, that's a whole 'nother issue. I have some ideas, but they involve upset changes AND setup changes AND automated monitoring of cygwin-announce. Icky stuff which I have no intention of coding, so I'll just shut up now. --Chuck
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote: Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine. I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine: Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1 Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release. Are you sure? Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem. Here's the package md5sum... Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum . Is that newer, or older than the mythical fourth release? Yeah, sorry about that. I gave you the md5sum of the fourth pre-release. I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?). However, you can't download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded... You're assuming that the guy has enough web space to hold all intermidiate releases. I've never seen this here. New packages are uploaded and the old ones removed. This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to test: releases on the cygwin mirrors. I *need* to keep pre-release and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or I'll hork off my testers... As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been setup-installable. Thus, no problems (except for communication issues, as described above). Ok I agree with this point. I've being doing this myself each time a new nfs-server package was released: 1) Download the package 2) Bump its version 3) Generate setup.ini 4) Upload to my site From these steps the most painful (error prone maybe is better) for me was the generation the setup.ini since I do this manually - yes I know there are other ways. Of course this is just me. My point back then, when I replied to Daniel, was that I'm not doing this because I like it this way. If you think about it, there is no gain for me to prefer one way over the other. This was my understanding of how the release process should work and it was based on the documentation on how to make packages. I'm not some freak who cant accept other peoples opinions. I'm open and since I see that my way is unacceptable for many of the people here, I agree that if a maintainer wants to bump the number then it is up to him not me. My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities for which I apologise. The important thing is to keep the packages coming.
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote: Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine. I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine: Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1 Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release. Are you sure? Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem. Here's the package md5sum... Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum . Is that newer, or older than the mythical fourth release? Yeah, sorry about that. I gave you the md5sum of the fourth pre-release. I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?). However, you can't download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded... You're assuming that the guy has enough web space to hold all intermidiate releases. I've never seen this here. New packages are uploaded and the old ones removed. One issue here is caching servers. I've been bitten many times by them, changing a file on the server, but then getting an old copy for about 3 hours until the cache is updated (buggy cache, of course, but oh, so possible). Changing the name circumvents this. [snip] My point back then, when I replied to Daniel, was that I'm not doing this because I like it this way. If you think about it, there is no gain for me to prefer one way over the other. This was my understanding of how the release process should work and it was based on the documentation on how to make packages. I'm not some freak who cant accept other peoples opinions. I'm open and since I see that my way is unacceptable for many of the people here, I agree that if a maintainer wants to bump the number then it is up to him not me. Noone implied you were. If the documentation suggests that this is the only way, then the documentation should be changed... My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget about them. [snip] The important thing is to keep the packages coming. Amen. :-) Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk! -- /usr/games/fortune
Re: Pending packages status
Pavel Tsekov wrote: My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities for which I apologise. The important thing is to keep the packages coming. Don't go away mad. I heartily appreciate your efforts to prevent contributions from getting lost. (It's not like we have so many contributors that we can afford to alienate them by forgetting about their contribution). I took your [original] comments to be just like those of any other reviewer: subject to disagreement (and revision). We can agree/disagree/argue on the list about specific requirements for specific packages or for packages in general; the goal is to get good packages into the distribution. IMO, this entire discussion is unrelated to the admirable job you're doing with the list-of-pending-contributions. [Which is now up to almost 10, unfortunately -- and I've got two more to add soon g] --Chuck
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:59:29PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to the absense of release notes for packages in setup. If there were a way to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is. This is more than just a so patch setup issue, since there is no connection currently between upset/setup and the announcements. Well, that's a whole 'nother issue. I have some ideas, but they involve upset changes AND setup changes AND automated monitoring of cygwin-announce. Icky stuff which I have no intention of coding, so I'll just shut up now. I'd *love* to be able to have setup.exe pull up some kind of more descriptive text (beyond ldesc) about the stuff it's installing. And, I'd love for setup.exe to be able to pull up the release notes when it was done installing. It seems like a nice idea to me. Why won't someone help me? Surely this is a good idea! I'd do it myself but I don't know how to type and I don't have a computer. You have to remember that not everyone with good ideas has access to a computer. It seems like sometimes you gurus forget these simple things. cgf
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:26:10PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities for which I apologise. I don't think you've overestimated your responsibilities. I think the policy wasn't clear and you've helped clarify it. The important thing is to keep the packages coming. Yep and you are a huge help in ensuring that they do. cgf
Re: Pending packages status
Pavel Tsekov wrote: No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your package is out. Please, rename the package files. As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the packages remain as follows: 5. TCM date : 27 Jan 2003 version: 2.20-1 status : reviewed; there are some problems with the binary package notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00046.html votes : 2 (Christopher and Lapo) url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint Bye, Daniel
Re: Pending packages status
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote: Pavel Tsekov wrote: No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your package is out. Please, rename the package files. As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the packages remain as follows: :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
Re: Pending packages status
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote: Pavel Tsekov wrote: No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your package is out. Please, rename the package files. As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the packages remain as follows: :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is. Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your preference :}. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Pending packages status
Pavel Tsekov wrote: On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote: On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote: Pavel Tsekov wrote: No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your package is out. Please, rename the package files. As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the packages remain as follows: :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is. Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your preference :}. Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply. Anyway, here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I do is really unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable or something like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1. Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version. On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current practice. Max.
Re: Pending packages status
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:55:45AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 3. LPRng date : 21 Jan 2003 version: 3.8.19-1 status : reviewed; updated package available notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html votes : 2 (Joshua and Volker) url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2 https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint Has my vote. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Pending packages status
Hi Danilo, thank you for testing and reporting the bugs. I'm currently working on a solution for the 2 problems you addressed. A workaround would be setting TCM_HOME to /usr/X11R6, but I'll fix it in the source. I'll let you know when I've got new tarballs. Regards, Daniel Danilo Turina wrote: 5. TCM date : 27 Jan 2003 version: 2.20-1 status : not reviewed notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html votes : 2 (Christopher and Lapo) url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint I tried TCM, but it seems not to work properly. After installation through setup, I launch it in this way: $ tcm could not open color info file '/usr/X11R6/share/tcm-2.20colorrgb.txt' It seems that a slash is missing between tcm-2.20 and colorrgb.txt. In addition when I try to click on the single tools I get errors like these (on the console): /usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgd: not found /usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgt: not found I tried also to download the sources (from the TCM site I think) and to compile them: in that case tcm works (even if it's installed under /opt). Ciao, Danilo Turina
Re: Pending packages status
5. TCM date : 27 Jan 2003 version: 2.20-1 status : not reviewed notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html votes : 2 (Christopher and Lapo) url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint I tried TCM, but it seems not to work properly. After installation through setup, I launch it in this way: $ tcm could not open color info file '/usr/X11R6/share/tcm-2.20colorrgb.txt' It seems that a slash is missing between tcm-2.20 and colorrgb.txt. In addition when I try to click on the single tools I get errors like these (on the console): /usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgd: not found /usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgt: not found I tried also to download the sources (from the TCM site I think) and to compile them: in that case tcm works (even if it's installed under /opt). Ciao, Danilo Turina
Re: Pending packages status (fwd)
It seems like you've replied only to me and not the list. I'm forwarding you message there. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:42:26 +0100 From: Volker Quetschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pending packages status Hi! 3. LPRng date : 21 Jan 2003 version: 3.8.19-1 status : reviewed; updated package available notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html votes : 1 (Joshua) url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2 https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint This has my vote, a lpr would be nice. Volker
Re: Pending packages status
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote: [snip] 10. pdksh ... votes : 2 (Christopher and Corinna) [snip] Hi, I don't know if my vote counts, since I'm not actually a maintainer, but I'd like to see this as an official package. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk! -- /usr/games/fortune
RE: Pending packages status
2. nfs-server date : 09 Dec 2002 version: 2.2.47-1 status : reviewed; there are several pending issues (more info can be found in the nfs related threads starting after Feb 11, 2003) Just wanted to let folks know that I haven't forgotten about this, but that other things are eating up my time right now :-/ -Samrobb
Re: Pending packages status
Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote: [snip] 10. pdksh ... votes : 2 (Christopher and Corinna) [snip] Hi, I don't know if my vote counts, since I'm not actually a maintainer, but I'd like to see this as an official package. Igor +1 In case it needs more votes 8-) -- Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards Hack Kampbjørn
Re: Pending packages status
Napsan da 2003.02.20 16:12, (autor: Nicholas Wourms): [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Napsan da 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov): 1. grace 2. nfs-server 3. LPRng 4. ifhp 5. TCM 6. par 7. pdksh There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html Not that I object, but as someone who is well aware of the frustration that sgml/xml processing systems cause on linux, shouldn't we have a complete roadmap for the potential cygwin system before we start checking in stylesheet Why this roadmap is required? I don't understand... We need working DocBook XML toolchain on cygwin (or at least I need :-). So I started packaging some software which are required to satisfy my needs. packages? I don't know of anyone who wouldn't agree that getting a working docbook system is a royal PITA. Are we going to have some sort of style-sheet management infrastructure at some point? Although I realize that xmlto xmlto is used in RH Linux too. I've no experience with jade and I'm unable to see any relation between xmlto and jade... is stand-alone from jade, I think we should plan for a fully working docbook rendering system at some point. I really don't have a good solution for this, but I feel it was at least worth noting the possible complications that may arise in the future from an improperly planned stylesheet installation. We should decide now on the type of layout that we want and what sort of management infrastructure we are going to use (RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, Debian, or our own?). You know, an ounce of prevention... My infrastructure is inspired by RH Linux. Any suggestions to improve this infrastructure are welcome. Thank you. -- +---+ | Marcel Telka e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |homepage: http://telka.sk/ | |jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +---+
Re: Pending packages status
Napsan da 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov): 1. grace 2. nfs-server 3. LPRng 4. ifhp 5. TCM 6. par 7. pdksh There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html Regards. -- +---+ | Marcel Telka e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |homepage: http://telka.sk/ | |jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +---+
Re: Pending packages status
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Napsan da 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov): 1. grace 2. nfs-server 3. LPRng 4. ifhp 5. TCM 6. par 7. pdksh There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html Not that I object, but as someone who is well aware of the frustration that sgml/xml processing systems cause on linux, shouldn't we have a complete roadmap for the potential cygwin system before we start checking in stylesheet packages? I don't know of anyone who wouldn't agree that getting a working docbook system is a royal PITA. Are we going to have some sort of style-sheet management infrastructure at some point? Although I realize that xmlto is stand-alone from jade, I think we should plan for a fully working docbook rendering system at some point. I really don't have a good solution for this, but I feel it was at least worth noting the possible complications that may arise in the future from an improperly planned stylesheet installation. We should decide now on the type of layout that we want and what sort of management infrastructure we are going to use (RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, Debian, or our own?). You know, an ounce of prevention... Cheers, Nicholas
Re: Pending packages status
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote: Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp. TCM). My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o) TCM-Testers welcome (anyway) Please, be patient :) The process of reviewing usually takes some time. First you need people interested in the package and second this people need to have some spare time, that they want to invest in reviewing the package. You submitted TCM for review 11 days ago - according to the standards of this list the time to worry has not yet come :) Thanks! :)
Re: Pending packages status
Please, be patient with an impatient newbie :) Thanx, Daniel Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote: Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp. TCM). My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o) TCM-Testers welcome (anyway) Please, be patient :) The process of reviewing usually takes some time. First you need people interested in the package and second this people need to have some spare time, that they want to invest in reviewing the package. You submitted TCM for review 11 days ago - according to the standards of this list the time to worry has not yet come :) Thanks! :) -- Daniel Boesswetter, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] peppermind - Network Neue Medien, http://www.peppermind.de
Re: Pending packages status
Just a FYI: --- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. LPRng 4. ifhp 7. par I vote for all 3 of these (assuming they work). I plan to review when I get the chance but I've got a big project right now. 1. grace 6. TCM I don't have X11 installed to review these. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Pending packages status
Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp. TCM). My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o) TCM-Testers welcome (anyway) Regards, Daniel Pavel Tsekov wrote: [...] 6. TCM version: 2.20-1 status : not reviewed notes : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html votes : 2 (Christopher and Lapo) url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint -- Daniel Boesswetter, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] peppermind - Network Neue Medien, http://www.peppermind.de Hirschgartenallee 25, D-80639 Muenchen Tel. +49 89 17860 352, Fax. +49 89 178 1235
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote: I do think that a version number should uniquely identify a version, though. A possibility that was not considered last time this was discussed is to start the reviewing at -0.1, going -0.2, -0.3, etc., and then bump to -1 on release. Feel free to ignore me if you don't want to reopen this discussion. Pavel Tsekov wrote: Hello, Max Just to let you know that I do not want to ignore your opinion, nor do I want to ignore any other peoples' opinion. I just do not have strong opinion on this topic. So, as far as I'm concerned I'm trying to follow the instructions at http://cygwin.com/setup.html. If as a result of a discussion on this list this instructions do change, I'll follow the new instructions whatever they are. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you or anyone else might treat my opinions unfairly. Quite the opposite in fact - that it would be fair to say that it's my fault for not paying sufficient attention to the discussion last month. I do feel that assigning individual version numbers to each change in the pre-release package would allow better cross-referencing of feedback during review, and that there is no need to reset the release number to 1 when released to the mirrors. I must agree, though, that this is not an issue of high importance. Max.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote: Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). Updated files are here: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package version number when releasing an updated version in the process of reviewing.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote: Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). Updated files are here: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package version number when releasing an updated version in the process of reviewing. Didn't the last discussion on this agree on *DO* update the Cygwin-specific release number during reviewing? Max.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote: Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package version number when releasing an updated version in the process of reviewing. Didn't the last discussion on this agree on *DO* update the Cygwin-specific release number during reviewing? Please, consult the last discussion about that. My memory is incorrect. Sorry. I do think that a version number should uniquely identify a version, though. A possibility that was not considered last time this was discussed is to start the reviewing at -0.1, going -0.2, -0.3, etc., and then bump to -1 on release. Feel free to ignore me if you don't want to reopen this discussion. Max.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Max Bowsher wrote: I do think that a version number should uniquely identify a version, though. A possibility that was not considered last time this was discussed is to start the reviewing at -0.1, going -0.2, -0.3, etc., and then bump to -1 on release. Feel free to ignore me if you don't want to reopen this discussion. Hello, Max Just to let you know that I do not want to ignore your opinion, nor do I want to ignore any other peoples' opinion. I just do not have strong opinion on this topic. So, as far as I'm concerned I'm trying to follow the instructions at http://cygwin.com/setup.html. If as a result of a discussion on this list this instructions do change, I'll follow the new instructions whatever they are.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 01:18:05PM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote: Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). What problems exactly are you having with Ghostscript? I'll assume that you're referring to the Cygwin version of Ghostscript. -- Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.helixdigital.com
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
- Original Message - From: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:11:59 +0100 (CET) On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote: Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). Updated files are here: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package version number when releasing an updated version in the process of reviewing. My mistake, both the above points are fixed now. The new binary package looks like: usr/ usr/man/ usr/man/man1/ usr/man/man1/nasm.1 usr/man/man1/ndisasm.1 usr/info/ usr/info/nasm.info usr/info/nasm.info-1 usr/info/nasm.info-10 usr/info/nasm.info-11 usr/info/nasm.info-12 usr/info/nasm.info-13 usr/info/nasm.info-14 usr/info/nasm.info-2 usr/info/nasm.info-3 usr/info/nasm.info-4 usr/info/nasm.info-5 usr/info/nasm.info-6 usr/info/nasm.info-7 usr/info/nasm.info-8 usr/info/nasm.info-9 usr/bin/ usr/bin/rdf2com.exe usr/bin/nasm.exe usr/bin/ndisasm.exe usr/bin/rdfdump.exe usr/bin/ldrdf.exe usr/bin/rdx.exe usr/bin/rdflib.exe usr/bin/rdf2bin.exe usr/bin/rdf2ihx.exe usr/doc/ usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/ usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/ usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdo10.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc0.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc1.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc2.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc3.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc4.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc5.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc6.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc7.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc8.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoc9.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoca.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdocb.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/html/nasmdoci.html usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/nasmdoc.ps usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/nasmdoc.txt usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/AUTHORS usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/CHANGES usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/INSTALL usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/COPYING usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/README usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/TODO usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35/ChangeLog usr/doc/Cygwin/ usr/doc/Cygwin/nasm-0.98.35.README Updated files are at: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-1.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-1-src.tar.bz2 Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
From: Dario Alcocer alcocer at helixdigital dot com Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:35:28 -0800 What problems exactly are you having with Ghostscript? I'll assume that you're referring to the Cygwin version of Ghostscript. They may not be a problem with ghostscript at all, contrary to what I said before. It may actually be a problem with the .ps that was generated. I have no experience with either format, but here's the error message from ps2pdf: $ ps2pdf -dOptimize=true nasmdoc.ps nasmdoc.pdf Error: /undefined in setpagesize Operand stack: Execution stack: %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval- - 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- fa lse 1 %stopped_push 1 3 %oparray_pop 1 3 %oparray_pop .runexec 2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push -- nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- Dictionary stack: --dict:1085/1123(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:111/200(L)-- Current allocation mode is local Current file position is 52386 GNU Ghostscript 7.05: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 The .ps was generated from a perl script that exited without error. The build works on debian with perl 5.8.0 and GNU Ghostscript 7.05. I'm using those same versions of each on cywin. I'm sorry for assuming this was a problem with ghostscript if it isn't. If you or anyone knows the source of this problem, I'd be happy to know. Otherwise, I'm quite happy to leave the pdf out - it would double the size of the binary package, and its not a format that is particularly useful (imho) in cygwin when there's html as well. Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 11:25:25AM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote: The .ps was generated from a perl script that exited without error. The build works on debian with perl 5.8.0 and GNU Ghostscript 7.05. I'm using those same versions of each on cywin. Compare the Postscript file that was produced on your Debian system with the one produced on Cygwin. If both Postscript files are exactly the same, then I'd say that there's a problem with Ghostscript. -- Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.helixdigital.com
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
- Original Message - From: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:37:20 +0100 (CET) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 4. nasm version: 0.98.35-1 status : not reviewed I've reviewed the packaging of nasm and it seems to be OK. The only thing that seems to be missing is the documentation. The documentation provided by the binary package includes only the man pages for nasm and ndisasm. However, nasm has a very complete documentation with a lot of examples and available in several differen output formats (html, info, pdf). So, I think including one the .info files in the binary package along with the man pages is a good idea and will make the package complete. Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). Updated files are here: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
- Original Message - From: Joshua Daniel Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:02:09 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status ... An alternative would be to have a separate nasm-doc package with all the documentation, which would keep the smaller binary download for people that do not need the docs. I agree that both the man and info docs should be available in the binary distribution. As for the additional (pdf, ps, html) documentation, I'm open to suggestion. The extra docs are certainly very comprehensive, although I don't often consult them. I also notice that the nasm project provides a separate nasm-0.98.35-xdoc package. In any case, I'll repackage the existing package to make everything and make install_everything, I'll post an update soon. Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
[nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 4. nasm version: 0.98.35-1 status : not reviewed I've reviewed the packaging of nasm and it seems to be OK. The only thing that seems to be missing is the documentation. The documentation provided by the binary package includes only the man pages for nasm and ndisasm. However, nasm has a very complete documentation with a lot of examples and available in several differen output formats (html, info, pdf). So, I think including one the .info files in the binary package along with the man pages is a good idea and will make the package complete. P.S. Yes, I know there are instructions on how to build the documentation in the Cygwin specific readme file, but this means that the user has to download the source package and build the docu by himself.
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
--- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, nasm has a very complete documentation with a lot of examples and available in several differen output formats (html, info, pdf). So, I think including one the .info files in the binary package along with the man pages is a good idea and will make the package complete. Making docs available is a good idea. I personally like info and HTML best. An alternative would be to have a separate nasm-doc package with all the documentation, which would keep the smaller binary download for people that do not need the docs. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Pending packages status
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 1. xinetd version: 2.3.9-1 status : reviewed notes : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00069.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00249.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00109.html votes : 2 (Charles, Christopher) and mine. 2. chkconfig version: 1.2.24h-1 status : reviewed notes : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00098.html reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00232.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00111.html votes : 2 (?!) (Charles, Joshua and others); If your vote is missing from the list please let me know Has my vote. 5. sunrpc 6. nfs-server Definitely my vote, too. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Pending packages status
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 5. sunrpc 6. nfs-server Definitely my vote, too. Both have my vote Corinna -- Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards Hack Kampbjørn
Re: Pending packages status
- Original Message - From: Hack Kampbjorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 8:32 AM Subject: Re: Pending packages status Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 5. sunrpc 6. nfs-server Definitely my vote, too. Both have my vote Me too. I'd like to build rpc-aware xinetd with sunrpc package. Sergey Okhapkin Somerset, NJ
Re: Pending packages status
Sergey Okhapkin wrote: 5. sunrpc Me too. I'd like to build rpc-aware xinetd with sunrpc package. Errrwhat do you mean? 1) xinetd can be built so that it (somehow) USES rpc calls, and you want to do that, or 2) you're simply proposing to include startup scripts for sunrpc (e.g. portmapper) in the xinetd package (e.g. in /etc/xinetd.d/) If 1), then fine by me. If 2), ... that's a policy discussion: where should daemon startup scripts live? a) As part of xinetd.d/ in the xinetd package, b) in /etc/rc.d/init.d/ as part of the initscripts package c) or in [/etc/rc.d/init.d|/etc/xinetd.d/] as part of whatever package the daemon itself is in? IMO, (c) is the right answer. That is, /etc/rc.d/init.d/sshd should be part of the sshd package, not initscripts. Ditto /etc/rc.d/init.d/portmap in sunrpc package. --Chuck
Re: Pending packages status
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:42:48PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Now, I didn't actuallly RUN the thing. But, assuming the above problems are addressed, I vote yes. Ditto for me on both counts. Same here.
Re: Pending packages status
From: Charles Wilson cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu
spkg doesn't seem to work properly -- the patch is VERY large.
This is because xinetd-2.3.9-1.sh sets objdir=${srcdir}.
You have to run clean before spkg. all target creates a correct diff
file. objdir have to be set to srcdir because of xinetd's makefile bugs.
I'm going to fix these bugs in the next release - I want to build xinetd
with a just announced RPC package.
should have an /etc/preremove script, to do the following
(*) rm -f /etc/xinetd.d/*
(*) rmdir /etc/xinetd.d
(*) rm -f /etc/xinetd.conf
I can't do that:-( Preremove script is executed on package upgrade too,
all user-created or modified settings will be lost on upgrade.
Regarding chkconfig:
conf) Why --disable-nls? Just to avoid the dependency on libintl?
Because chkconfig build fails otherwice:-) --with-included-gettext
configure option fixes the problem, but I'd like to investigate first waht
is wrong with chkconfig's configure/Makefile.
--
Sergey Okhapkin
Somerset, NJ
Re: Pending packages status
1. xinetd
version: 2.3.9-1
status : not reviewed
notes : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00069.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00249.html
votes : ?!
url: http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/xinetd/xinetd-2.3.9-1.tar.bz2
http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/xinetd/xinetd-2.3.9-1-src.tar.bz2
http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/xinetd/setup.hint
packaging review:
- some nits in the -src package
- needs a preremove script
-
spkg doesn't seem to work properly -- the patch is VERY large.
contains these additional files (compared to the patch shipped
with the package):
Makefile
config.h
config.log
config.status
libs/include/config.h
libs/include/fake-getaddrinfo.h
libs/include/libportable.h
libs/include/m_env.h
libs/include/misc.h
libs/include/pset.h
libs/include/sio.h
libs/include/str.h
libs/include/xlog.h
libs/man/Sprint.3
libs/man/m_env.3
libs/man/misc.3
libs/man/pset.3
libs/man/psi.3
libs/man/sio.3
libs/man/strparse.3
libs/man/strprint.3
libs/man/strutil.3
libs/man/xlog.3
libs/src/misc/Makefile
libs/src/portable/Makefile
libs/src/pset/Makefile
libs/src/sio/Makefile
libs/src/str/Makefile
libs/src/xlog/Makefile
xinetd/Makefile
This is because xinetd-2.3.9-1.sh sets objdir=${srcdir}. That's okay
by me -- but if Sergey's going to build xinetd within the srcdir, then
the mkpatch) stanza should clean up these extra files before creating
the diff. Or create an exclude file in CYGWIN-PATCHES, and use
diff --exclude-from=${srcdir}/CYGWIN-PATCHES/diff-excludes ...
or...hmmm...ctually, the list of offending files is pretty short --
the libs/man, libs/include, and libs/lib directories are supposed
to be empty. AND, there are NO other directories in the srcpkg with
the names include, man or lib. So, simply adding these patterns
takes care of things:
-x 'include' -x 'man' -x 'lib' \
-x config.h -x config.log -x config.status -x Makefile \
-
should have an /etc/preremove script, to do the following
(*) rm -f /etc/xinetd.d/*
(*) rmdir /etc/xinetd.d
(*) rm -f /etc/xinetd.conf
rm -f /usr/bin/xinetd-config
chkconfig --del xinetd 21 /dev/null
rm -f /etc/rc.d/init.d/xinetd
(*) since these come from the embedded sharutil archive, take a look at
how Chris's gcc-mingw package handles preremoval. Basically, the
postinstall script makes a manifest when it untars, and then the
preremove script uses that manifest to know what to delete.
-
Now, I didn't actuallly RUN the thing. But, assuming the above problems
are addressed, I vote yes.
--Chuck
Re: Pending packages status
Hi Pavel, 1. xerces-c ... 2. xinetd ... 3. chkconfig ... You probably missed my package proposal from yesterday: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html Bye Volker -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
RE: Pending packages status (update)
Hi Pavel, As Volker Quetschke pointed out, the packages status list I've posted earlier today was missing a package. Here is an updated version which includes the missing package. what happened to doxygen ? Regards, Jörg
RE: Pending packages status (update)
what happened to doxygen ? http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00226.html Someone needs to review it, but noone seems to be interested in doing so. -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
Re: Pending packages status
3. xerces-c [...] reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg9.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00048.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00047.html votes : 3 (Gerrit, Gareth and Robert) AFAICS, this package needs just another review after being patched. Gareth, are you stepping forward, perhaps? You had that problem which needed the fix... As I told abraham in off-list communication - I've been busy for a few days - but this weekend it should happen. The patch hes used is identical to what i used for personal purposes so its fine. I'll download the packages tommorow (on my trusty28.8k) and give them another once over. The main issue left from before was that the source package seemed to be missing things. Gareth - one more day then 4 months of nothing to do... hmm better fix that.
Re: Pending packages status
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:46:42AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Hello, I think 'doxygen' and 'tmake' have been idleing for too long now. I'd like to remove them from this list starting with the next issue. It doesn't look like that just keeping them around will speed up the process of accepting them into the distro. Sounds like a good idea for doxygen. Tmake is just waiting for a third vote besides Joshua and Lapo. Anybody here with a strong opinion on that? 3. xerces-c [...] reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg9.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00048.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00047.html votes : 3 (Gerrit, Gareth and Robert) AFAICS, this package needs just another review after being patched. Gareth, are you stepping forward, perhaps? You had that problem which needed the fix... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: sysvinit initscripts ready for upload ? was Re: Pending packages status
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:56:48AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 4. sysvinit version: 2.84-2 6. initscripts version: 0.9-1 It seems like these two are ready to be released - is there any reason that they are still not on sourceware ? Is it OK to upload them ? AFAICS, yes. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Sergey Okhapkin wrote: 6. initscripts version: 0.9-1 status : reviewed; needs some packaging fixes I did the fixes already a while ago... Sorry, my mistake :( While reading the thread I got lost - and I red it more than once :) Reading it again I've found the right post.
Re: Pending packages status
--- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6. initscripts votes : ?? Also, I voted for this. IIRC, several other people did too. Really, it complements sysvinit so well that I'd really like to see it on the mirrors ASAP. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: --- Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6. initscripts votes : ?? Also, I voted for this. IIRC, several other people did too. Really, it complements sysvinit so well that I'd really like to see it on the mirrors ASAP. Ok, I missed it then. The thread is too long and several topics are covered in it. Anyway I don't think that this package won't be included in the distro just because I didn't succeed to properly find out how many people voted for it. From what I see on the list, I think that Sergey's packages are very well accepted and they'll be all included in the distro even if the number of voters was not enough. Having so many people reviewing this packages is also a sign that they vote for their inclusion even if they haven't stated it explicitly.
Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 4. rsync version: 2.5.5-2 6. agetty version: 2.1-1 Hi, I've just uploaded the above two packages. Lapo, can I remove version 2.5.4-1? Pavel, I like your status reports! Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:cygwin;cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Pending packages status
Hello, Corinna On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 4. rsync version: 2.5.5-2 Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm not sure that if it should be uploaded.
Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:05:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Hello, Corinna On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 4. rsync version: 2.5.5-2 Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm not sure that if it should be uploaded. Yes, I did, and I mulled over it a bit. As far as I understood it, the new package doesn't introduce a new regression. It's just not clear if it solves a specific problem. Hmm, did I get something wrong? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:cygwin;cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote: 4. rsync version: 2.5.5-2 Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm not sure that if it should be uploaded. Yes, I did, and I mulled over it a bit. As far as I understood it, the new package doesn't introduce a new regression. It's just not clear if it solves a specific problem. Hmm, did I get something wrong? I don't think so :) My point is that it wasn't clear if the patch is actually necessary with latest Cygwin and if it wont hide some Cygwin bug. From the announcement one also can see that this patch is the only difference to 2.5.5-1. Btw from the original announcement that Lapo made, I see that he suggested 'a test period' though I dont know if this should be interpreted that the package should be marked 'test'.
Re: xerces-c voting (was: Re: Pending packages status)
Ciao, Gerrit! :) On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: 3. xerces-c IIRC, I voted yes for this package too, it seems the mail didn't make it through. I did parts of the patch so I'm not the right person to review it. I'll try to review the packaging in the weekend if noone beats me till then. As it comes to functionality I can't be of much help - I've played with xerces for java some months ago, but that was all :( Please count me in :-) Fixed! :)
Re: Pending packages status
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Lapo Luchini wrote: 2. tmake Whops, I see my message was a bit obscure, but was meant to be a vote. Well I'll say it not tmake seems useful enough to me to vote it. Ok, then ;) I'll put your vote in the next issue.
Re: Pending packages status
2. tmake version: 1.8-1 status : reviewed, ready for upload once it gets the necessary votes reviews: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-09/msg00222.html votes : 1 (Joshua) url: http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/tmake-1.8-1-package.tgz Whops, I see my message was a bit obscure, but was meant to be a vote. Well I'll say it not tmake seems useful enough to me to vote it. Lapo -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Pending packages status
I made a mistake with doxygen - the status was wrong. Sorry :( Below is the fixed information. On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 1. doxygen version: 1.2.18-1 status : reviewed, needs minor fixes notes : this package is currently vetoed (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00056.html) reviews: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-09/msg00107.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00033.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00040.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00050.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00052.html http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00065.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00087.html votes : 5 (Joshua, John Morrison, Lapo, Nicholas and Robert) url: http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/doxygen-1.2.18-1-package.tgz
Re: Pending packages status
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 18:44, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 2. CMake version: 1.4.5-1 status : reviewed, ready for upload Uploaded. 3. swig version: 1.3.15-1 status : update to an existing package - review is not required Uploaded. swig-1.3.11-1-src.tar.bz2 and swig-1.3.11-1.tar.bz2 removed. 4. pine version: 4.44-3 status : update to an existing package - review is not required Uploaded. 4.44-1 files removed. Cheers, Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. --- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Pending packages status
Please consider changing maintainer. I regret doxygen was vetoed by my failure. Many people wait for being available on cygwin. Ryunosuke
