On 03 May 2006 21:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:24:19PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
there is not enough time to maintain all my packages.
Who wants to maintain one or more of my packages, maybe Yaakov wants to
take over some of the GTK+ related packages? Then
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:22:16AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 03 May 2006 21:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:24:19PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
there is not enough time to maintain all my packages.
Who wants to maintain one or more of my packages, maybe Yaakov wants
I would like to propose my cygport package as a new package
building/maintaining method, as well as a new package for the distribution.
What is cygport?
cygport is a new method of building packages. See README for my
(lengthy) explanation of why I created this, but here's the concept
behind it,
On 5/4/06, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
(Yes, the syntax is *inspired* by Gentoo Portage, but not identical, and
the code behind it is mostly my own.)
Wow...
Once upon a time, I coughed up a proto-ITP, which met with few
remarks. I have since advanced my documentation on the matter:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Alonso wrote:
Might it be more advisable to make Portage do this job? Granted, most
of the Portage tree isn't going to work for Cygwin, but there's no
reason that Cygwin can't have it's own.
Portage itself was already vetoed, as it would
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:24:19PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hello,
there is not enough time to maintain all my packages.
Who wants to maintain one or more of my packages, maybe Yaakov wants to
take over some of the GTK+ related packages? Then there are some more
major packages which
Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
and was written with Cygwin in mind by someone
(namely, me) with a repository of 1400 Cygwin binary packages.
And that, right there, is why cygport should go into the distro. It's
painful to manage 40-50 packages with g-b-s -- 1400 would be downright
Igor Peshansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As the pdksh maintainer, I would like to veto having this package in the
distro simultaneously with pdksh (since this is a newer version of pretty
much the same package). In fact, I've been (slowly) working on preparing
a new release of pdksh that
Paul Watson pwatson-mQgUnnP8r7LqlBn2x/[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The mksh.exe cannot do some things in my .profile which are now
being done by pdksh on Cygwin, ksh on AIX and Solaris, and ATT ksh
on FC4.
Can tou provide details, so that there bugs could possible be
addressed.
The man page
