Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-19 Thread Stipe Tolj
Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Do I understand that right? There's a patch which changes the default > prefix? Is it really necessary to patch the package to install into /usr > by default? That sounds rather superfluous and irritating. Usually, > when a user calls `configure', the default prefix

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-19 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Dec 18 18:33, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stipe Tolj wrote: > > now, I'd like to take method 2, but the package does not provide and > > sophisticated autoconf suite, only the raw Makefile. And actually for > > one .c file this is ok ;) Uh, scratch my previous posting. No c

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-19 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Dec 18 17:16, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stipe Tolj wrote: > > [snip] > > > 5) There are no port notes in the Cygwin-specific README, even though > > >there are some user-visible changes in the patch, such as changing the > > >prefix to /usr and removing the "-s" lin

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-19 Thread Dr. Volker Zell
> "Stipe" == Stipe Tolj writes: Stipe> BTW, @Volker: you should have voted to the -apps list too ;) Sorry, I just hit the reply button... I vote pro Stipe> Stipe Ciao Volker

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-18 Thread Charles Wilson
Stipe Tolj wrote: I did reverse patching for thre previous packages apache, php, etc too. Non was objected until know. AFAIK, either you have the orginal source tree and your patch provides the cygwin specific changes or oposite. Actually this may you apply the patch to produce the orginal source

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-18 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stipe Tolj wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > > Hmm, I guess it's not that important. I was just going by what's on > > , which clearly states that applying the > > patch *in reverse* should get you the original sources... > > hmm, isn't it

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-18 Thread Stipe Tolj
Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > Hmm, I guess it's not that important. I was just going by what's on > , which clearly states that applying the > patch *in reverse* should get you the original sources... hmm, isn't it the case?! > > > 3) Any particular reason you have

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-18 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stipe Tolj wrote: > Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > > Sounds interesting. I'll vote for this. > > I'll update this after we resolve this issues here. > > > Now for the review: > > [snip] > > 2) This uses method 1 packaging. AFAIU, the patch in CYGWIN-PATCHES > >should sti

Re: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-18 Thread Stipe Tolj
Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > Sounds interesting. I'll vote for this. I'll update this after we resolve this issues here. > Now for the review: > > 1) The documentation is still in /usr/doc and /usr/man... Any plans on >moving it to /usr/share/{doc,man}? ok, changed. > 2) This uses metho

[Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

2003-12-18 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stipe Tolj wrote: Re: [ITP] tree: Recursive directory listing program that produces a depth indented listing of files > Hi list, > > this is a quick one. Canonical homepage is: > > http://mama.indstate.edu/users/ice/tree/ > > --setup.hint-- > sdesc: "Recursive directory lis