tiff-3.6.0-3
libtiff4-3.6.0-3
libtiff-devel-3.6.0-3
This is NOT to be confused with today's non-test release of
tiff-3.6.0-2, libtiff3-3.6.0-2, and libtiff-devel-3.6.0-2. The new,
curr: release has 'cygtiff3.dll' while the new test: release
has cygtiff4.dll.
BTW, maintainers: note that this
I have recently split the tiff package into three:
tiff
libtiff3 (post-1.5.0, libtiff4)
libtiff-devel
I have taken the liberty of updating the setup.hint files on the server
for the following packages:
tetex/tetex-bin
XFree86/WindowMaker
emacs/emacs-X11/
so that they now require:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Throwing an exception would indicate a problem actually, if you want
to get all by-the-book about it.
I'm with Gary here, I'd prefer see an exception thrown for a problem.
Unless there's some issues with using exceptions that I don't know about...
(which, given
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
lilypond also depends on tetex, and tetex is still waiting for tiff
and XFree.
I'm moving as fast as I can, here...but a warning about tiff.
You are being fast indeed. It was not my intention to press you,
sorry if I did.
tiff depends on jpeg.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Gary,
Here is a partial list of issues from your mega-patch.
I still bristle at the mega ;-). 43K including the bulk of res.rc ain't
even *close* to mega ;-).
It it if you think about in terms of number of separate concepts included,
instead of byte size :-)
*
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
I'm still letting you guys fight this out, but I'm going to snipe from the
sidelines ;-):
...
I once again leave you two to fight it out while I get some actual code
written.
That's not particularly helpful, Gary. Anyway, as per what I said in what I
snipped above, I
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 05:29:45PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
May I apply whitespace changes which are in keeping with the style of
surrounding code and the rest of setup without explicit review?
Do we have an obvious checkin rule for setup? This is obviously obvious.
Are such things supposed to
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 15:54:29 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are we waiting for these libraries? Do they export variables or
functions which rely on new 64 bit types?
I
* Fri 2003-07-04 Gerrit Haase [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.cygwin-apps
* Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jari schrieb:
Project http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/~matloff/joe.html has been
ported. Please review. I personally like joe because it includes
'jmacs', a joe Emacs keybinding emulation.
The
* Fri 2003-07-11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.cygwin-apps
* Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@ cygbuild
date : 12 Jun 2003
version: 2003.0612-1
status : not reviewed
notes : http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-06/msg00104.html
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-06/msg00105.html
What should package maintainers be doing about this?
I maintain the cmake package, and although I am subscribed
to this list, I rarely follow it closely. I post updates
to cmake, but that is about it. However, I just noticed
this thread. Should package maintainers being
building stuff for
* Fri 2003-07-11 Nicholas Wourms [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.cygwin-apps
* Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 03:34:38PM +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
@ cygbuild
date : 12 Jun 2003
version: 2003.0612-1
status : not reviewed
notes :
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:25:51PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
I compile the program stuff.exe that depends upon the non-rebuilt dll
foo.dll. No interfaces between stuff.exe and foo.dll were changed in
1.5.0, but foo.dll calls lseek.
Now, when lseek in foo.dll is resolved at link time with the
Jari Aalto+list.cygwin-apps wrote:
* Fri 2003-07-11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.cygwin-apps
* Message-Id:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
@ cygbuild
date : 12 Jun 2003
version: 2003.0612-1
status : not reviewed
notes : http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-06/msg00104.html
* Fri 2003-07-11 Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.cygwin-apps
* Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Right. Sorry. Just the using cygbuild (as apposed to gbs) is allowed.
While technically this is true, I really can't see the difference
between the two. For
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 05:29:45PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
May I apply whitespace changes which are in keeping with the style of
surrounding code and the rest of setup without explicit review?
Do we have an obvious checkin rule for setup?
No, not yet. This is the
Oops! I swiped the wrong line for the subject. It should have obviously
been Re: Waiting for xfree86? [Was: guile-1.6.4-1].
Sorry!
--
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax: 314-551-8444
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:59:34PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
Just one last clarification. If stuff.exe also calls lseek, it will get
lseek64 at link time, and foo.dll will still use lseek. So, they each
operate seperately, but happily, be it in their respective 64 or 32 bit
world?
Yes. But
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 09:24:14PM +0300, Jari Aalto+list.cygwin-apps wrote:
* Fri 2003-07-11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.cygwin-apps
* Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@ cygbuild
date : 12 Jun 2003
version: 2003.0612-1
status : not reviewed
notes :
Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Strictly, guile does not depend on readline and curses, but if you
# want the guile executable, you probably want readline editing. -- jcn
requires: cygwin libguile12 libncurses6 libreadline5
^^^
I've been looking at the current mechanism for moving between pages in
setup, in order to be able to extract the correct bits of Gary's patch for
the OnAcceptActivation change.
I've found that we are actually stuck in the middle of a transition between
2 idioms.
Old: The global variable
Hallo Jari,
Good that newer version has been ported. Please include Gerrit's
version. I'll drop mine.
I'm looking for a maintainer. If you want to maintain joe, take it
and contribute it. I do already perl which takes lot of my spare
time.
It will also need some cleanup, I just compiled it
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 02:12, Max Bowsher wrote:
Approved.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://members.aardvark.net.au/lifeless/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 11:46, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'd submit that if the motivation for a comment change isn't obvious
then the comment change either shouldn't have been made or the comment
isn't clear.
I agree. Thats why I qualified the rule-of-thumb: comment changes as
part of a
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:40:07AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 02:29, Max Bowsher wrote:
May I apply whitespace changes which are in keeping with the style of
surrounding code and the rest of setup without explicit review?
Are such things supposed to be ChangeLogged?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:52:15AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 11:46, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'd submit that if the motivation for a comment change isn't obvious
then the comment change either shouldn't have been made or the comment
isn't clear.
I agree. Thats why I
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 02:29, Max Bowsher wrote:
May I apply whitespace changes which are in keeping with the style of
surrounding code and the rest of setup without explicit review?
Are such things supposed to be ChangeLogged?
Example:
-UINT Window::IsButtonChecked (int nIDButton) const
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:17:27PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 12:19, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yeah, but you snipped the part of my mail where I quoted the FSF
ChangeLog standard. It implied that the why isn't necessary. In
fact, it indicates that you shouldn't be putting
Also, bumped to latest source release, 1.5
jbigkit-1.5-1
jbigkit-1.5-1-src
Yes, I was able to release a package containing a DLL in a single,
monolithic package! Hooray! But wait, there's more...
--
Chuck
Simply recompiled on a cygwin-1.5.0 system. No other changes.
(But that makes TWO DLL-positive packages released monolithically!)
--
Chuck
30 matches
Mail list logo
