On Dec 9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 12/9/2014 10:46 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 2:52 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 14:10, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Come to think of it. When exactly do we want to allow installing
packages without
On 12/10/2014 10:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
To me sounds wrong the concept, why we should hide this check to
the users ?
I have seen recently too many wrong dependencies pullings extra
unnecessary packages. I prefer to have users that could note the
On Dec 10 11:29, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 12/10/2014 10:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
To me sounds wrong the concept, why we should hide this check to
the users ?
I have seen recently too many wrong dependencies pullings extra
unnecessary packages. I
On Dec 9 16:04, Warren Young wrote:
On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com
wrote:
On Dec 8 15:28, Warren Young wrote:
I’ve got in mind the 2-3 times in my memory where Perl has crept into
the minimal install set via some indirect dependency.
I still
Dear List,
I am a core developer of the CHICKEN scheme system. We have supported
building and running CHICKEN on cygwin for almost a decade now. However
I noticed that the current cygwin package has been outdated for years.
The current version that's listed is 3.4.0-0 which has been discontinued
On 2014-12-10 10:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Did you (and Ken) get me wrong, by any chance?
What I was trying to say is *not* to remove the dependency dialog. What
I was trying to say is *only* to remove the check box in that dialog,
which allows to install the selected packages without
On 12/10/2014 12:25 PM, Christian Kellermann wrote:
Dear List,
I am a core developer of the CHICKEN scheme system. We have supported
building and running CHICKEN on cygwin for almost a decade now. However
I noticed that the current cygwin package has been outdated for years.
As the previous
Hi Christian,
On Dec 10 12:25, Christian Kellermann wrote:
Dear List,
I am a core developer of the CHICKEN scheme system. We have supported
building and running CHICKEN on cygwin for almost a decade now. However
I noticed that the current cygwin package has been outdated for years.
The
On Dec 10 12:48, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2014-12-10 10:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Did you (and Ken) get me wrong, by any chance?
What I was trying to say is *not* to remove the dependency dialog. What
I was trying to say is *only* to remove the check box in that dialog,
which allows to
* Marco Atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com [141210 13:28]:
As I only have access to a 32bit Windows Version (7) atm I am unable to
test this for 64-bit builds.
Compiling chicken-4.9.0.1-1.x86_64
make -f ./Makefile.cygwin CONFIG= all
make[1]: Entering directory
* Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com [141210 13:31]:
The problem is just this: We need a maintainer for the package.
Somebody who's willing to do the packaging, manage updates, and
monitors the cygwin mailing list for user's problems.
Are you willing to take over Cygwin
On Dec 10 14:18, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com [141210 13:31]:
The problem is just this: We need a maintainer for the package.
Somebody who's willing to do the packaging, manage updates, and
monitors the cygwin mailing list for user's problems.
* Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com [141210 14:58]:
Thanks I will have a look. What's the cygwin way of detecting whether
we build for 32 or 64 bit? I'd use that to switch options then.
${ARCH} is i686 or x86_64. Or you can test like this:
if defined ARCH_i686
then
On 12/10/2014 2:14 PM, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* Marco Atzeri [141210 13:28]:
As I only have access to a 32bit Windows Version (7) atm I am unable to
test this for 64-bit builds.
Compiling chicken-4.9.0.1-1.x86_64
make -f ./Makefile.cygwin CONFIG= all
make[1]: Entering directory
* Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com [141210 15:45]:
CHICKEN_ARCH=x68-64
^^^
this looks wrong.
Oops, thanks. Consider it fixed.
Kind regards,
Christian
--
May you be peaceful, may you live in safety, may you
* Marco Atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com [141210 15:41]:
I was just suggesting the usage of a standard config systems:
Automake, cmake...
No, this has been discussed internally befor many times. The project
already moved from autotools, scons, cmake to the current state.
So far it served us very
On 12/10/2014 3:50 PM, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* Marco Atzeri marco.atzeri gmail.com [141210 15:41]:
Attached a better chicken.cygport that allow the
build on separate tree, identify the architecture
correctly install and package.
This also avoid the creation of not needed
* Marco Atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com [141210 16:09]:
Thanks insteresting. Which gcc is this? Are you sure you build with
a 64 bit assembler there?
Please note that the 32bit version of the Assembler don't have that
row.
Interesting, we only ran into this with Apple's Mach-O assembler.
It
* Christian Kellermann ck...@pestilenz.org [141210 16:33]:
* Marco Atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com [141210 16:09]:
Thanks insteresting. Which gcc is this? Are you sure you build with
a 64 bit assembler there?
Please note that the 32bit version of the Assembler don't have that
row.
On 12/10/2014 4:33 PM, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* Marco Atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com [141210 16:09]:
Thanks insteresting. Which gcc is this? Are you sure you build with
a 64 bit assembler there?
Please note that the 32bit version of the Assembler don't have that
row.
Interesting, we
Hi Marco,
thanks for all your help so far. Could I ask for one more try?
please do a make PLATFORM=cygwin confclean or start from scratch and add
HACK_APPLY=0
to the make options.
Does this compile succeed? Does a make check work then?
We already do this for the mingw platform, so we should
On Dec 10 16:50, Christian Kellermann wrote:
* Christian Kellermann ck...@pestilenz.org [141210 16:33]:
* Marco Atzeri marco.atz...@gmail.com [141210 16:09]:
Thanks insteresting. Which gcc is this? Are you sure you build with
a 64 bit assembler there?
Please note that the 32bit
On 12/10/2014 5:06 PM, Christian Kellermann wrote:
Hi Marco,
thanks for all your help so far. Could I ask for one more try?
please do a make PLATFORM=cygwin confclean or start from scratch and add
HACK_APPLY=0
not exactly, it need
HACKED_APPLY=
to the make options.
Does this compile
Andrew Schulman writes:
I don't think the !ready files should be created by cygport, at all.
Yaakov will decide, but I disagree.
Well, that's that.
The point of having an upload command
is to relieve packagers of the tedium and likelihood of getting it wrong
when they have to remember
Peter Rosin writes:
I would like to still be able to pick a single new package and leave
the rest as is, and I would like to NOT be required to download the
latest setup and run it using some newfangled command line option for
this. It is very nice to be able run the lastest setup with a few
The point of having an upload command
is to relieve packagers of the tedium and likelihood of getting it wrong
when they have to remember where to connect to and which commands to run to
put what files where. How much nicer to just run cygport up and let
cygport handle it.
It then
On 2014-12-10 22:27, Achim Gratz wrote:
Peter Rosin writes:
I would like to still be able to pick a single new package and leave
the rest as is, and I would like to NOT be required to download the
latest setup and run it using some newfangled command line option for
this. It is very nice to
On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com wrote:
It boggles my mind how much is in the Cygwin package repository, and
then how much more is in Ports. To some extent, this has to be a
reflection of Sturgeon’s Law. [2]
Isn't that the same for all distros?
28 matches
Mail list logo
