Re: RFP: texmf

2001-12-04 Thread Charles Wilson
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerome BENOIT) writes: I will try to rebuild the tetex-beta package this week-end. To avoid any confusion, I plan to rename it `tetex-bin' as suggested in a previous email. Very nice. Be sure to also create a new 'tetex-beta' package that

Re: new cygwin-cross-1.3.6.1

2001-12-07 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 04:30:12PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Some people promised to have a look at my cross build scripts package so I've made some fixes. It should generate fully Cygwin compliant binary and source packages now, I hope. I wonder if these

Re: Figlet-2.2 Experimental

2001-12-07 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:31:28AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: __ _ ___ _ _ _ _(_) |_ / _` / -_) '_| '_| | _| \__, \___|_| |_| |_|\__| |___/ Was there something you wanted to say, here? Just quoting

Re: broken setup.hint files

2001-12-08 Thread Charles Wilson
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Ummm...they are not broken. You just dislike some stylistic choices... Well, setup.exe barfs on the. Quoting from inilex.l: sdesc: return SDESC; ldesc: return LDESC; category:return CATEGORY; requires:

libtool packages

2001-12-09 Thread Charles Wilson
I've put three new packages here: http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/testing/ I am not yet ready to even ask for official inclusion. This is just a kind of here, heads up, what do you think? message. There's libtool-20010531-rc6.tar.bz2

RE: has anyone tried latest setup.exe from cvs ?

2001-12-14 Thread Charles Wilson
Sort of. The problem though is that I'm nearing the completion of some pretty extensive changes to the GUI code, so if there's problems with that in the cvs stuff I might not even know about it. I did however run across a problem in the INI-parsing code that does prevent it from working.

Re: curl, libcurl, libcomprex, leakbug (was:Re: Packaging cURL for cygwin distribution ???)

2001-12-16 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: The -x is the binary API compatability index. See the libtool documentation. Actually, I don't think the libtool docs explain DLL versioning on windows (the 'c - a' thing). They DO explain about libtool's versioning scheme on UNIX, and if you read that and think about

Re: rebase

2001-12-18 Thread Charles Wilson
Jason Tishler wrote: I would like to contribute my rebase utility. Should it be a stand-alone package? Be added to another package (i.e., cygutils -- sorry to suggest this Chuck...)? Or, be added to winsup/utils? I think it should go in winsup/utils, but I've no objections to putting it

Re: Contribution Package Proposal: JASSPA's MicroEmacs

2001-12-18 Thread Charles Wilson
I believe the commercial restrictions are problematic. If we're going to include an emacs, I'd prefer one that is completely free (speech) like FSF Emacs or XEmacs. However, with the soon-to-be-released features in setup.exe, there's no reason why Jon can't provide a cygwin-friendly download

Re: Restructuring gettext

2001-12-18 Thread Charles Wilson
Okay, I've uploaded and announced the new gettext packages: gettext-0.10.40-1 libintl1-0.10.40-1 libintl-0.10.38-3 I also updated the setup.hint files on the server for the following packages: wget mutt nano vim sharutils The maintainers of those packages should make a note

Re: Restructuring gettext

2001-12-19 Thread Charles Wilson
Gerrit P. Haase wrote: What is the problem here? libintl and libintl1 are two different packages with different names. But there's only one nano. (sounds like an ad campaign) So, nano's setup.hint has a line like: requires: foo bar libintl Later, the (then-)current nano will

Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)

2001-12-19 Thread Charles Wilson
Morrison, John wrote: Thats not what the help file says... Note that category names may be multi-word, e.g., ASCII Games but, currently all categories are only a single word. I know that. category: Shell Utils is two categories. category: Shell Utils is one category. (Earnie's

Re: fortune-1.8-1 [was Re: bash completion (was: RE: Units)]

2001-12-19 Thread Charles Wilson
Corinna Vinschen wrote: I'd like to pour fuel into the fire of `usefulness' of a package. I'd like to contribute the NetBSD fortune package to Cygwin and therefore I'd even like to propose to add a Games section *gasp*. setup.hint: --- sdesc: Print a random, hopefully

Re: libtool devel works nicely

2001-12-29 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: Chuck, lovely wrapper scripts, they work beautifully (its what I used for libxml2 and libxslt - which I did so I could give you feedback). That's good to hear. So you exercised the whole automake/autoconf/libtool chain? If so, then how did you put together your

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22 package available for setup inclusion

2002-01-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Earnie Boyd wrote: I'm confused. What's all this talk about needing new binutils? Yep, I'd say. My guess is that Stipe is using a cross buiold platform that doesn't include your change. Therefore he has to hard code the prefix in filename translations in the Makefile.in or what ever

Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2

2002-01-12 Thread Charles Wilson
I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically. While it is easy to use apache1 and apache2 instead of apache_1 and apache_2 -- it isn't so easy for packages (like bzip2) that already end with a numeral. I'm specifically thinking of: splitting bzip2 into a bzip2 and

Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)

2002-01-12 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: Okay, I've renamed the devel package: libtool-devel-20010531-6 that should be libtool_devel-20010531-6 shouldn't it? (devel is a flavour and thus part of the name). I _think_ that the current upset and setup.exe logic actually starts at the right and owrks left,

Re: any chance...

2002-01-12 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: Of getting automake 1.5b pacakged? Perhaps as a test version? It's got a key fix in it that drops som Makefile.in's down from Mb's to just Kb's. I forward ported the current patch, and rebuilt automake-devel from 1.5b. That seemed to go okay; I'm waiting for make

Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)

2002-01-13 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: Correct -- it does work from R to L. If we cannot depend on this behavior, then we must rename the following packages: Which is one of the implications of the thread where you said http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-01/msg00208.html. Well, consider it a thinko

Re: any chance...

2002-01-13 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: - Original Message - From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I forward ported the current patch, and rebuilt automake-devel from 1.5b. That seemed to go okay; I'm waiting for make check to complete. If successful, I'll post the packages for Corinna to do

Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)

2002-01-13 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: AH yes - thus showcasing the point at hand: tetex - beta-20001218 - cygver is parsed as tetex-beta - 20001218 - cygver! Hmmm...I must spend too much time with computers. My human brain parsed tetex-beta-20001218-2 as tetex-beta 20001218 2. You have been using

Re: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Charles Wilson
How big are they? If they are only a single .c file each (killall.c, utmpdump.c, last.c) then they are candidates for addition to the cygutils package, if you'd prefer./. One of these days I'll get around to creating a sourceware-based CVS tree for cygutils...Chris, how do I do that?

Re: last package

2002-01-15 Thread Charles Wilson
Mark Bradshaw wrote: Very small. All source combined is 33KB. Executables are 23.5KB. This is just last and utmpdump. You want 'em? Dunno yet. I'm not really concerned about # kilobytes. My rule for cygutils is one .c file per application -- I want to limit cygutils to very

Re: RFC: updated package wget-1.7.1-1

2002-01-15 Thread Charles Wilson
It looks pretty good to me -- I rebuilt it from source right now and it seems okay. The *only* quibble I have is that the binary package contains this file: /etc/wgetrc Since it is just a copy of /usr/doc/wget-1.7.1/sample.wgetrc, you should probably just add some logic to your postinstall

Re: last package

2002-01-16 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: I've just added you to the cygwin-apps group on sources.redhat.com: cvs -d :ext:sources.redhat.com:/cvs/cygwin-apps co . Feel free to add a cygutils directory. Okay -- I've added it and imported v0.9.7. Also, I've added Mark's last implementation and the

Re: for the brave

2002-01-19 Thread Charles Wilson
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Collins I need a few testers: I've fixed the fault Corinna reported with in use files and upgrades. I'd like to know that it works on 9x (not tested properly just

Re: [ANN] rcs-5.7 package available

2002-01-22 Thread Charles Wilson
Earnie Boyd wrote: Hmm... OOTB? Did you take care to test it? In the past there've been issues with the way files are left opened while the temp files are being copied over them. That doesn't work with Win32 and therefore Cygwin. With CVS already working do we need RCS? Sure -- let a

Re: setup.exe command line options

2002-01-23 Thread Charles Wilson
Release early and often. Go ahead and publish what you have, against current CVS. You only need to #ifdef stuff out if it will actually BREAK something that is currently working. If it's, say, the handler for an incompletely implemented commandline option, then it won't break anything

Re: for the brave

2002-01-27 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: IIRC this is reproducible for you Chuck, can you shoot me some logs please. Okay, this is from setup 2.188 (compiled just now) and I am trying to do a local install from //polgara/private/software/windows/cygwin-new/ which contains a standard tree structure and the

Re: for the brave

2002-01-27 Thread Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson wrote: Robert Collins wrote: IIRC this is reproducible for you Chuck, can you shoot me some logs please. Okay, this is from setup 2.188 (compiled just now) and I am trying to do a local install from //polgara/private/software/windows/cygwin-new/ which contains

Re: for the brave

2002-01-27 Thread Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson wrote: After applying the attached patch to setup 2.188, I got a clue that the problem was that my 'local' repository was on a remote share '//polgara/private/'. Forgot to include the setup.log.full data that gave me this clue: setup.exe is really trying to iostream

Re: for the brave

2002-01-28 Thread Charles Wilson
Earnie Boyd wrote: Charles Wilson wrote: file:/Polgara/private/software/windows/cygwin-new/setup.ini file:Polgara/private/software/windows/cygwin-new/setup.ini This makes sense. You need two // after file: and two // before Polgara. The extra fifth / was just ignored. Sure

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

2002-01-28 Thread Charles Wilson
Michael A Chase wrote: Shouldn't this be part of the ash package? Now that it's part of the Base category, there shouldn't be any problem creating /etc/profile when ash is installed. No. ash provides ash. base-files provides the data for a purely data-driven setup.exe. That is, the

Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?

2002-01-29 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: Can we concentrate on releasing a new version of setup.exe, please? I'd like to eliminate the confusion that the current version of setup.exe is causing. It seems like we are in a standard add one more thing mode when people are experiencing real problems and

Re: TCP Wrappers

2002-02-07 Thread Charles Wilson
Prentis Brooks wrote: Alright, finally read over the setup.html file and built up the src and binary packages. Writing up the setup.hint file now. I have the following: # TCP Wrappers @ tcp_wrappers_7.6 This line is not necessary -- it is created in setup.ini by the upset

Re: setup w/char* eliminated is big

2002-02-14 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:42:28PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: *please* make sure that the '-' vs. '_' fix is in before releasing the new setup. I've been sitting on the bzip2 update waiting on this... (Also, the localdir-is-on-remote-share fix would be nice

Re: upset2

2002-02-14 Thread Charles Wilson
upset2 seems to work okay for me, on a few locally-constructed trees. In fact, discounting the tarball listings in html that upset generated, the output is identical to upset's...nice job. --Chuck Christopher Faylor wrote: I've moved 'upset' to a new home and have begun modularizing the

Re: New file for winsup/utils

2002-02-22 Thread Charles Wilson
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: OK, here is a new util: Usage mkshortcut.exe [OPTION]... TARGET NOTE: All filename arguments must be in unix (POSIX) format -a|--arguments=ARGS use arguments ARGS -h|--help output usage information and exit -i|--icon icon file for

ITP: pkgconfig

2002-02-22 Thread Charles Wilson
I've got pkgconfig ready for contribution to the cygwin distribution. Since we're starting to get a few packages that include .pc files (libxslt, libxml-2.0) we probably ought to have this. I've got version 0.10.0 (released 2002-02-02) ready to. I think it should go in latest/pkgconfig/

Re: pkgconfig

2002-02-22 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: -Original Message- From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ITP: pkgconfig I've got pkgconfig ready for contribution to the cygwin distribution. Since we're starting to get a few

Re: New file for winsup/utils

2002-02-23 Thread Charles Wilson
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: OK, c file and man page attached. The copyright is updated and the version now reads 1.01. I assume you would rather mess with the Makefile since you're already familiar with the cygutils source; let me know if I need to provide patches for anything. This'll

Re: setup.exe rebase patch

2002-02-26 Thread Charles Wilson
Jason Tishler wrote: (Or do you rebase cygwin1.dll as well :]]). Yes, I can rebase cygwin1.dll too. This is why I converted the stand-alone rebase to a Mingw app. Urk. If we follow Earnie's suggestion to include the output of 'objdump -S1' with cygwin1.dlll snapshots and the

Re: setup.exe rebase patch

2002-02-26 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: -Original Message- From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] However, I agree that rebasing shouldn't be the default behavior. In fact, I wonder if I should make cygwin non-rebaseable. It would load faster if I did that. Yes, and it would

Re: ghostscript 6.51-4 now ready

2002-02-26 Thread Charles Wilson
Dario Alcocer wrote: I've finished testing and packaging the latest release of Ghostscript; the new release uses the libpng and zlib shared libraries, as suggested by Chuck Wilson. I've put the packages and MD5 sum file at: http://members.cox.net/dalcocer/gs If someone has upload

Re: ITP: pkgconfig

2002-03-01 Thread Charles Wilson
Anybody else want to weigh in, here? So far I've got one 'yay' vote from Robert (but putting pkgconfig into contrib instead of latest) Fine by me Any other votes? --Chuck Charles Wilson wrote: I've got pkgconfig ready for contribution to the cygwin distribution Since we're starting

Re: [PATCH suggestion] aclocal wrapper script loops forever if automake-devel or automake-stable is missing

2002-03-13 Thread Charles Wilson
Pavel Tsekov wrote: Hey, there! :) Does the attached patch make any sense ? It prevents an infinite loop if either automake-devel or automake-stable is missing. Yes, it does -- of course, setup enforces that automake depends on automake-devel and automake-stable, so if you see this

Re: libtool devel auto-import broken

2002-03-17 Thread Charles Wilson
Hmmm...there's a line in ltmain.sh that says: -allow-undefined) # FIXME: remove this flag sometime in the future. $echo $modename: \`-allow-undefined' is deprecated because it is the default 12 continue ;; Actually, libtool.m4 is an original file.

Re: Link for MORE

2002-03-17 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: If someone wants to contribute, I think it should just be a standard package. Chuck, I hate to say this, but I don't see a real reason for growing cygutils. The more packages we add to cygutils, the more we go back to the old way of installing cygwin packages

Re: release setup now?

2002-03-18 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: 2) It seems that when uninstalling (or upgrading), if the uninstalled package leaves behing a directory that is empty, the directory is not removed. Not a big deal, and certainly not a showstopper. Hmm, has that behaviour changed? I'll add a TODO for it. Actually,

Re: tcp wrappers

2002-03-20 Thread Charles Wilson
Prentis Brooks wrote: Hmm. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to make the wrapper library a DLL. I would rather we didn't, primarily because the modification to make tcp wrappers work with Cygwin was simplistic. In fact, at this point the modification is only to the Makefile, plus a

Re: tcp wrappers

2002-03-20 Thread Charles Wilson
Prentis Brooks wrote: Hrmmm I will look into it, I am sure there is some efficiency gained from making it a DLL. Would packages that are built against libwrap automatically use the DLL if it is available, or would they need to be tweaked as well (ie sshd is compiled such that if

Re: pager in default install

2002-03-21 Thread Charles Wilson
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: Did you see the 'more' source code I posted the other day -- it came from the util-linux distribution (http://freshmeat.net/releases/72929/) --Chuck Yes, I already had the util-linux source on my HD from looking at the source to kill. The problem is that it

Re: pager in default install

2002-03-21 Thread Charles Wilson
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: That's because I didn't use this list. I had another criteria which, if you are looking in the email archives, you should be able to see mentioned a few times. I used the 'base' category from debian. Hopefully we haven't drifted from that too much. I remember

Re: pager in default install

2002-03-21 Thread Charles Wilson
, that last one is an exagerration. Actually, the ncftp code has a special cygwin hack so that on cygwin, ncftp uses less by default. Other platforms use more by default. But you get the idea.) --Chuck Charles Wilson wrote: In my previous post, I didn't mean to argue against 'more' as a package

Re: more package

2002-03-23 Thread Charles Wilson
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: requires: ash cygwin libintl1 ncurses pcre almost nothing actually depends on the ncurses package. the dependency is probably on the libncurses6 and/or terminfo packages. --Chuck

Re: release setup now?

2002-03-25 Thread Charles Wilson
Michael's script works for me. One caveat: I had to manually run 'clean_lst.pl ./a*.lst' 26 times (using different starting letters). However, that was because I got a BSOD when running it fullbore -- where it tried to fixup all files. Now, a perl script should never ever be able to cause a

Now that the new setup is here...

2002-03-25 Thread Charles Wilson
there were two things I was going to do: 1) move gettext from the contrib directory to the latest directory -- and see if anybody barfs. 2) update bzip2 to the latest release -- which involves the grand library split thing (bzip2 - bzip2 + libbz2_0). However, the name libbz2_0 is

Re: setup all ok now....

2002-03-26 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:15:53PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: I think we've done it. So Chuck, feel free to break everyone who's lagging behind :}.. Shouldn't we wait a day or two and let the new setup.exe work its way through the system? don't worry -- I

Re: How to create a ksh93 package...

2002-03-27 Thread Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson wrote: I suggest that the ksh-specific binaries should just go into /usr/bin/ksh/ or maybe /usr/libexec/ksh/ --Chuck

Re: Install-Info not found during installing CYGIN

2002-03-28 Thread Charles Wilson
Hack Kampbjørn wrote: Note this doesn't happen for wget. I've just checked. texinfo. Should be in base (IMHO). No! Anything that has info pages should depend on texinfo. That's what dependencies ARE FOR. Anything that installs .info files should have texinfo in its dependency list.

Re: How to create a ksh93 package...

2002-03-28 Thread Charles Wilson
First, read my other message (sent immediately prior to this one) Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:21:22AM -0500, Fleischer, Karsten (K.) wrote: Would other executables that are not stub executables but alternative version to existing commands go there, too? ATT have own

Re: more and base

2002-03-29 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: Can we remove more from base? More is what? 3k? I'd love to have had it in the base install when I installed my cygwin - I support having a pager in the default install (which != base!!!) Base: cygwin is non-functional and completely broken(*) unless

Re: move texmf-* out of test?

2002-04-03 Thread Charles Wilson
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Hi, As tetex-beta-20001218-4 (now in curr) and texmf-*-2804-2 seem to work well together, can we remove the test marker from texmf? You are the maintainer; it is your decision. I thought there was a three weeks period for test; who's keeping track of

Re: Setup's download local cache storage directory!!!!

2002-04-03 Thread Charles Wilson
Earnie Boyd wrote: Also, the way that things are coded for choosing multiple mirror sites I could have the same file in more than one directory in the cache. Ouch, that bites. I don't think that will happen. Of all of the versions of project 'bob' on all of the download sites, only the

Re: TCP Wrappers

2002-04-03 Thread Charles Wilson
Corinna Vinschen wrote: Also, the name should be 'tcp_wrappers-7.6-REL...'; the package release version is missing. Agh! I'm sorry. I'm still not really back from vacation, apparently. Can I remove the package and keep the directory and setup.exe is still happy? Sure -- I've

Re: TCP Wrappers

2002-04-03 Thread Charles Wilson
I've whipped up a repackaged version of your -src, that follows the approved conventions. Also, it uses a shell script to control building, and installs the man pages, header file, has a postinstall script to create /etc/hosts.allow/deny if they dont already exist, etc. I'll mail it to you

Re: move texmf-* out of test?

2002-04-03 Thread Charles Wilson
Somebody beat me to it -- they have already been promoted. --Chuck Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right now, yes -- it requires someone with a shell account on sourceware to edit the setup.hint file -- or scp up a new copy of the setup.hint file

Re: Now that the new setup is here...

2002-04-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson wrote: 1) move gettext from the contrib directory to the latest directory -- and see if anybody barfs. I did this. It's been many moons and many point releases (and a major release) since the last time we moved a package directory (ncurses, I think) from contrib

Re: SGML/XML packages available for testing

2002-04-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Gerrit P. Haase wrote: It is still dubious for me. Setup was able to fetch it from the server during 'Download only' with version number '1'. But when doing an install from local directory it wasn't offered anymore in the chooser. IIRC Setup is able to install packages even if there is

Re: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?

2002-04-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Ian Burrell wrote: That is a list of subdirectories. But it won't work since the each package needs its own subdirectory. A better hiearchy would use the components from the package names. Hopefully, multiple levels of subdirectories will work. Yep. Subdirs work fine. For instance,

Re: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?

2002-04-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: They were simple changes to the script I wrote to repackage the distributed archives. I'll try to write proper setup.hint files for all the packages. Cool. I'm unclear about how the -src packages (are/should be) handled, since there are a great many binary

Re: Now that the new setup is here...

2002-04-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:05:19AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: But those are social problems, not technical ones. And ones I have little sympathy for. Setup is a technical tool, not a social one. It's not aimed at being the best downloader, only the best installer.

Re: Now that the new setup is here...

2002-04-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: 2) update bzip2 to the latest release -- which involves the grand library split thing (bzip2 - bzip2 + libbz2_0). However, the name libbz2_0 is incompatible with the old setup, and even 'cygcheck -c' gets confused prior to the cygwin-1.3.8 release. But I didn't

Re: Now that the new setup is here...

2002-04-09 Thread Charles Wilson
Oooo, NOW I get it. I didn't understand that verpat: was a new field in setup.hint, PARSED by upset. It's perfectly clear in hindsight. Nevermind my earlier comments. Time for some sleep. --Chuck Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:24:18PM -0400, Charles Wilson

Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:07:45PM +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote: Corinna, what about the announcement I posted to cygwin-announce ? It hasn't yet passed to the main lists, or have I missed it? Maybe you are peaking at me to take as long as I did for the package

Re: Now that the new setup is here...

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: sitecopy is worth a look as a mirroring tool.. Sitecopy is intended for keeping a remote site in sync with the local master version (e.g. uploading your personal website to a server on which you have ftp access). It's isn't great for keeping a local mirror of a

Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson
Stipe Tolj wrote: Ok, should I CC to cygwin by hand now?! No need to panic?! For the short term, yes. Once Chris fixes the gateway (or gets cygwin-announce out of spamassisin's black hole), then you can stop. For my part, I will wait a reasonable amount of time (15 mins?) after each of

w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson
So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked the entire w32api package onto sourceware: cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/* What's that all about? Shouldn't that stuff be kept out of the mirrored anonftp area? --Chuck

Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:05:04PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: Charles Wilson wrote: So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked the entire w32api package onto sourceware: cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/* What's that all about

Re: cygwin port of Pine

2002-04-12 Thread Charles Wilson
Eduardo Chappa wrote: Hello, I am sending this message, because I have built Pine for cygwin, and I would like to know if the cygwin community is interested in distributing this package. I would maintain the package, that's not a problem at all. The Pine developers team also approves

Re: cygwin-doc

2002-04-13 Thread Charles Wilson
AFAIK, setup doesn't handle buildRequires. What I've been doing is to only list runtime dependencies for the binary package in the Requires: line, and then just mention the buildtime requirements in the readme. e.g. you don't list gcc/binutils in the Requires: line of every package. --Chuck

Re: libtool devel package still dll crippled.

2002-04-13 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: Line 4476 of libtool.m4 setups allow_undefined to 'unsupported' for Cygwin. With --auto-import this is incorrect. It should set it to ...=' I *think* that's all I had to do to get the auto-import magic back on track :}. Chuck, I hate to be a bother, but is this

Re: libtool devel package still dll crippled.

2002-04-13 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: What Ralfs patch does is change allow_undefined_flag to no (as opposed to unsupported) and ?? what's the difference between ...=unsupported and ...=no and ...=? Shouldn't the SAME answer be given in all sections, with respect to whether allow_undefined_flag is a

Re: libtool devel package still dll crippled.

2002-04-14 Thread Charles Wilson
Ralf Habacker wrote: must be some way to prevent ld outputting the imported symbols as well as the exported symbols... I'm using a special patched ld (based on the recent official ld) which rejects exporting of all imported libs with a one line patch binutils/ld/pe-dll.c:234 /* Do

Re: extra apache shared module DLLs

2002-04-15 Thread Charles Wilson
Stipe Tolj wrote: (i) package each module to an apache-mod_foobar-X-Y.tar.bz2 binary package and distribute through the standard Cygwin setup.exe (setting setup.hint to require the apache-1.3.x base package) This one. That's the way linux distros do it -- they have

Re: 'release' directory now active

2002-04-15 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: The affected subdirectories were readline/*, texmf/*, libpng/* . And probably ncurses/* bzip2/*. Anyway, I've checked the following: release/libpng/* release/readline/* release/ncurses/* release/bzip2/* and they all look fine. However,

Re: enscript-1.6.3-2 bugfix release

2002-04-16 Thread Charles Wilson
Gerrit -- configuration files should be handled in a nondestructive manner. Rather than including /etc/enscript.cfg in the tarball, instead modify your postinstall script to do something like: if [ -f /etc/enscript.cfg ] ; then OUTFILE=/etc/enscript.cfg.new else

Re: xfree packages

2002-04-16 Thread Charles Wilson
I can do this -- but what was the outcome of the package name argument? Was it xfree-foo-4.2.0-1.tar.bz2 or xfree86-... or XFree86-...? I'll need to modify the znark script accordingly. --Chuck Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:22:52PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-17 Thread Charles Wilson
Currently, there are three dominant -src packaging standards. 1. As detailed on http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 unpacks thus: foo-VER[-REL]/ foo-VER[-REL]/source files foo-VER[-REL]/subdirs foo-VER[-REL]/subdirs/source files

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-17 Thread Charles Wilson
Lapo Luchini wrote: PS: I can see at least a motivation for using exact original package now: so that people can use md5sum and get convinced that the included file is really exactly the original... Bingo. --Chuck

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-17 Thread Charles Wilson
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Lapo Luchini wrote: Why the wget-1.8.1-1-src.tar.bz2 package does contain wget-1.8.1.tar.gz ? That would be what is called in the software community a mistake. Can this be corrected, asap, Hack? ??? Chris, are you

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-17 Thread Charles Wilson
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html Wow. Insightful email. as usual... Well, I guess I haven't been paying much attention to your and Robert's packages. I'd forgotten that I'd suggested that we package as we see fit and foolishly looked to what I supposed was the

Re: extra apache shared module DLLs

2002-04-17 Thread Charles Wilson
What about modules that do change/patch Apache's source tree to hook on certain structures that can not be accessed using the normal API? I'm thinking espacially about mod_ssl and mod_snmp, which both need to patch Apache's core to be applied? Well, you can run an mod_ssl-modified apache

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-18 Thread Charles Wilson
Corinna Vinschen wrote: I'm talking about style 2. I'm using it for my packages. I don't see a need that the Cygwin package needs the patch from the original version. The pristine source is available elsewhere. We're responsible for the Cygwin version. In the long run the maintainer

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-19 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: And the GPL requires us to document the changes made - if we have the patch pre-applied, with no reverse patch, then this isn't the case. Asking folk to go elsewhere to get that 'pristine' source puts the onus on the upstream to make that available, which we can't do -

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing

2002-04-19 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: we have to make XFree86-base-src the package that contained the full source archive. Hmm. Yes. I think this would work. That might be the best solution. In fact, it may be a nice trend setter. I think setup.exe needs a little work before doing this, but it's a

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing

2002-04-20 Thread Charles Wilson
Robert Collins wrote: -Original Message- From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:59 PM Also, setup must do the following (even without new 'views' and whatnot) Setup should already do that, why not make a test setup.ini and see what

New versions of autoconf, automake

2002-04-20 Thread Charles Wilson
On 3/25, I uploaded new versions of autoconf-devel and automake-devel, but I didn't mark them current because Corinna was on vacation. Corinna, any objections to removing the 'test' designation from autoconf-devel-2.53-1 and automake-1.6-1 ? (Be sure to read the previously posted

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-20 Thread Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson wrote: Actually, if there's no opposition (hah!) I'll update the documentation to reflect the current situation (e.g. 3 styles) -- but I'd like to mark one of them as the preferred style for new packages. Hopefully mine and robert's style. ;-) Okay, as promised

Re: strange source packaging?

2002-04-21 Thread Charles Wilson
Can we get a diff for the HTML page? Okay --- setup-old.html Sun Apr 21 03:03:18 2002 +++ setup.html Sun Apr 21 03:01:44 2002 @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ border=0 usemap=#topbar alt=/a/center !-- == -- -!--

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >