Re: [RFC] cygport: arch-specific workdir

2014-03-27 Thread David Stacey
On 27/03/14 18:50, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: Actually, that is experimental code (based on a request from another cygport user) that was accidentally shipped when I had to reroll the source tarball for compatibility with F20/UnversionedDocDirs. Would people like to see this done always, never, or

Re: [RFC] cygport: arch-specific workdir

2014-03-27 Thread Ken Brown
On 3/27/2014 4:01 PM, Achim Gratz wrote: Yaakov (Cygwin/X) writes: Actually, that is experimental code (based on a request from another cygport user) that was accidentally shipped when I had to reroll the source tarball for compatibility with F20/UnversionedDocDirs. Would people like to see thi

Re: [RFC] cygport: arch-specific workdir

2014-03-27 Thread Achim Gratz
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) writes: >> Actually, that is experimental code (based on a request from another >> cygport user) that was accidentally shipped when I had to reroll the >> source tarball for compatibility with F20/UnversionedDocDirs. Would >> people like to see this done always, never, or only wh

[RFC] cygport: arch-specific workdir (was: cygport cross compilation)

2014-03-27 Thread Yaakov (Cygwin/X)
On 2014-03-19 13:04, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: On 2014-03-19 11:32, Ken Brown wrote: I've just started experimenting with using cygport for cross compiling, and I've come across two issues: 1. This is just a request: The latest cygport for Fedora appends i686 or x86_64 to the name of the working

Re: [ITP] onc-rpc-devel-2_19_20140211-1

2014-03-27 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Mar 27 10:55, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:02:37AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Mar 24 17:14, Pavel Fedin wrote: > >> Hello! > >> > >> > So why > >> > not just provide a single onc-rpc-devel, that should be entirely > >> > sufficent. > >> > >> onc-rpc-heade

Re: [ITP] onc-rpc-devel-2_19_20140211-1

2014-03-27 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:02:37AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Mar 24 17:14, Pavel Fedin wrote: >> Hello! >> >> > So why >> > not just provide a single onc-rpc-devel, that should be entirely >> > sufficent. >> >> onc-rpc-headers is obsolete, ignore it. The idea of creating onc-rpc-devel

Re: [ITP] onc-rpc-devel-2_19_20140211-1

2014-03-27 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Mar 24 17:14, Pavel Fedin wrote: > Hello! > > > So why > > not just provide a single onc-rpc-devel, that should be entirely > > sufficent. > > onc-rpc-headers is obsolete, ignore it. The idea of creating onc-rpc-devel > came to me in order to merge headers and rpcgen. Did you send your ss