Re: Units

Last time I simply removed the `test' marker. This time I'll ask. John, are you sure that it should become a `test' version? Please see setup.html. It explicitly requires this for new packages. Rob

Re: Units

Ok, I bit. Step 5: 5. Create setup.hint file following the documentation on this web page. For new packages the first upload MUST be tagged as experimental. Once the package has no major bug reports from the users, then a current package may be introduced Rob

Re: Units

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:53:30PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: Ok, I bit. Step 5: 5. Create setup.hint file following the documentation on this web page. For new packages the first upload MUST be tagged as experimental. Once the package has no major bug reports from the users, then a

RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

I found a problem with the bash_completion as stands... I have a path ~/Applications/Apache Group/ with no other directory in Applications starting with 'A'. When I cd ~/Applications/A[tab] it doesn't autocomplete. When I look through the shell script I can see... snippit # Turn on extended

Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

=== - Original Message - From: Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:02 PM Subject: RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units) I found a problem with the bash_completion as stands... ... Sorry to have caused so

Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:02:07AM -, Morrison, John wrote: I found a problem with the bash_completion as stands... I have a path ~/Applications/Apache Group/ with no other directory in Applications starting with 'A'. When I cd ~/Applications/A[tab] it doesn't autocomplete. That's

RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

-Original Message- From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 11:22 am To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units) On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:02:07AM -, Morrison, John wrote: I found a problem with the

Re: Units

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:40:35PM -, Morrison, John wrote: Hi, I've packaged up the latest version of units. I've just uploaded it to sourceware. You might consider to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in a few hours. Please keep the format as you will find it in the cygwin-announce

RE: Units

Thanks. Will do. btw, since you prob a *lot* more about bash than I do (since you're the maintainer for cygwin ;) have you any idea's why that's scripts messing cd's auto completion up? J. -Original Message- From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 20

Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

=== - Original Message - From: Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Robert Collins' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:50 PM Subject: RE: bash completion (was: RE: Units) Question: does

which which

If you'll pardon the pun, which version of which are we running? The GNU version is currently 2.13 and I just wondered if folks would like and update...? (it compiles OOTB) J. === Information in this email and any

Re: which which

=== - Original Message - From: Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:01 PM Subject: which which If you'll pardon the pun, which version of which are we running? The GNU version is currently 2.13 and I just wondered if folks would

RE: which which

I wasn't sure that: 1) we were using the GNU which (which --version doesn't work) and 2) by offering to update the package I wouldn't be offending the current(?) maintainer. J. BTW - It wasn't 1.5 in particular I wanted to know but whether it was the GNU which we were using. Which's are

Re: which which

Ah, well I've no idea about how GNU our version is. :}. Rob === - Original Message - From: Morrison, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Robert Collins' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:23 PM Subject: RE: which which I wasn't sure that: 1) we were

Re: Units

Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:53:30PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: Ok, I bit. Step 5: 5. Create setup.hint file following the documentation on this web page. For new packages the first upload MUST be tagged as experimental. Once the package has no major bug

Re: Units

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:39:13AM -, Morrison, John wrote: Thanks. Will do. btw, since you prob a *lot* more about bash than I do (since you're the maintainer for cygwin ;) have you any idea's why that's scripts messing cd's auto completion up? Prepared for disappointment? Ok, then,

Re: which which

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:23:38PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: Ah, well I've no idea about how GNU our version is. :}. I contributed my own small version of which (which is version 1.5). If you want to maintain which in future, feel free to contribute the GNU version instead. I have actually

Re: which which

- Original Message - From: Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I contributed my own small version of which (which is version 1.5). If you want to maintain which in future, feel free to contribute the GNU version instead. I have actually no problems stepping back. I'm happy with

RE: Units

Oh well - never mind :) I CC'd the original author, hopefully either he (or somebody on this list...? :) can fix it *GRIN*. J. -Original Message- From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 12:45 pm To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: Units

RE: which which

Judging by the following::: /-- $ cygcheck --help Usage: cygcheck [OPTIONS] [program ...] -s, --sysinfo = system information (not with -k) -v, --verbose = verbose output (indented) (for -s or programs) -r, --registry = registry search (requires -s)

RE: which which

Corinna - is there any pro's/cons (besides not maintaining your own version) for/against using the GNU version? J. -Original Message- From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 12:47 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: which which On

Re: which which

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:29:54PM -, Morrison, John wrote: Corinna - is there any pro's/cons (besides not maintaining your own version) for/against using the GNU version? Dunno. I never compared them. If you compare them and you're under the impression the GNU version has some real

RE: which which

Here's the help from the GNU one... $ which --help Usage: which [options] [--] programname [...] Options: --version, -[vV] Print version and exit successfully. --help, Print this help and exit successfully. --skip-dot Skip directories in PATH that start with a

Re: Units

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:09:17PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:38:39AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote: Corinna Vinschen wrote: Not amused, Corinna Nor, am I amused. If it must be tagged I'd rather see the tag NEW instead, unless the maintainer believes that

Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

Charles Wilson wrote: John, why don't you create a bashutils package, to serve as a collection of (moderately) useful bash scripts and settings. For now, it could contain only bashcompletion, but later you could add -- oh, bashprompt, or something... I'm sure every daily bash user has

RE: Units

Hi, I think this reply is too late (since I've just downloaded it from a mirror ;), I don't mind whether it's a test version or not - but the docs are still not terribly clear wrt this (IMHO). I'll send an announcement tomorrow. Thanks, J. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Units

- Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't see how that applies to the first release of a new package. I'd call it pretty basic risk management. If the package doesn't cause any havoc, then put it in current really quickly. I'm just nervous with the concept

Re: Units

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:27:33PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't see how that applies to the first release of a new package. I'd call it pretty basic risk management. If the package doesn't cause any havoc, then put

Re: Units

=== - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Btw, I think Earnie's idea of having a *New!* category is actually a good one. I have been meaning to implement something like that for the web package lister, in fact. Yes. I intend to do that for setup once we

Re: Units

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 04:25:49PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: === - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Btw, I think Earnie's idea of having a *New!* category is actually a good one. I have been meaning to implement something like that for the web package

Re: Units

=== - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about New within the last _x_ days ? Then it's up to the user. Rob

new setup snapshot

I've uploaded a new setup snapshot for the adventurous. w32api also has been updated, and the update is needed to build the setup HEAD code. Feedback welcome. remaining features to next release: 1) Gary's layout changes. 2) Clickable categories. 3) Pavel Tsekov's netio refactor to io_stream.