On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:01:12PM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote:
>>Btw, the new version of 'upset' does the right thing with things like
>>this. If you have a directory called 'XFree86-fonts-100dpi' it will no
>>longer assume that 100dpi is part of the version string. It just uses
>>the directory na
Chris,
> Btw, the new version of 'upset' does the right thing with things
> like this.
> If you have a directory called 'XFree86-fonts-100dpi' it will no longer
> assume that 100dpi is part of the version string. It just uses
> the directory
> name as a prefix for the .tar.bz2 files.
That's goo
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:53:34PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:34:29PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
>>Is the script for building setup.ini files from a directory hierarchy
>>available anywhere? I want to setup a test install directory with the
>>full hierarchy and s
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:00:23PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:50:04PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>Name? Do you mean version? If you put a version in setup.hint it is
>>>currently ignored.
>>
>>The name from the "@" line and the versi
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim George
> Sent: Friday, 12 April 2002 21:02
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?
>
>
> If you SuSE Linux box is only acting as a fileserver, gateway
> why run X on
> it? If you
al Message -
From: "Tim Huckvale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?
I'm interested in a minimal cygwin / xfree86 package since I'm only
using it to con
gt; [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ian Burrell
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2002 00:49
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?
>
> There are a couple of refinements that can be made to the
>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:50:04PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Name? Do you mean version? If you put a version in setup.hint it is
>>currently ignored.
>
>The name from the "@" line and the version header could be used to
>override the parsing of file names into name a
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> Name? Do you mean version? If you put a version in setup.hint it
> is currently ignored.
>
The name from the "@" line and the version header could be used to
override the parsing of file names into name and version.
- Ian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zna
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:10:15PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Yes, a -75dpi part of a tar file will look like a version number.
>>
>>Can you use an underscore instead?
>
>I could use an underscore. I got it to work by changing it to dpi75.
>Shouldn't the name in the se
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:19 PM
> I don't think it's that big a deal to require cygwin packages
> to follow
> a parseable naming scheme; ours is pretty lenient...when it
> fails, it's
> not a terrible
Ian Burrell wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, a -75dpi part of a tar file will look like a version number.
>>
>> Can you use an underscore instead?
>>
>
> I could use an underscore. I got it to work by changing it to dpi75.
> Shouldn't the name in the setup.ini file override that
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> Yes, a -75dpi part of a tar file will look like a version number.
>
> Can you use an underscore instead?
>
I could use an underscore. I got it to work by changing it to dpi75.
Shouldn't the name in the setup.ini file override that version number
parsing?
- Ia
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:23 AM
> Now, this works, and upset/setup are happy (every binary
> package has a
> "src" package) but it is hackish, ugly, and a pain to maintain. Is
> there a better solutio
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:34:29PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
>Is the script for building setup.ini files from a directory hierarchy
>available anywhere? I want to setup a test install directory with the
>full hierarchy and setup.hint files.
>
>Also, I ran into a problem with the xfree-fonts-100d
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:43:54PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>If it is upset I'll be upset.
>>
>>It should be acceptable to have bin without source.
>>
>>If it causes a problem, I'll fix it.
>
>That's great. (I'm not planning on needlessly changing my packages, but
>perhaps the next time the
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:22:30PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
>>Now, this works, and upset/setup are happy (every binary package has a
>>"src" package) but it is hackish, ugly, and a pain to maintain. Is
>>there a better solution? (Or can we discard the psuedo
Is the script for building setup.ini files from a directory hierarchy
available anywhere? I want to setup a test install directory with the
full hierarchy and setup.hint files.
Also, I ran into a problem with the xfree-fonts-100dpi and
xfree-fonts-75dpi packages. With a hand-generated setup.in
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:22:30PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Now, this works, and upset/setup are happy (every binary package has a
>"src" package) but it is hackish, ugly, and a pain to maintain. Is
>there a better solution? (Or can we discard the psuedo-src packages
>without repurcussio
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
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 instan
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:56:36PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
>Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>I'm not clear not the hierarchy there - that reads like a list to me.
>>You've got two clauses you can independently use to make a hierarchy and
>>package dependencies - category:(i.e. the devel tarball belon
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Burrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:57 AM
> 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
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> I'm not clear not the hierarchy there - that reads like a list to me.
> You've got two clauses you can independently use to make a hierarchy and
> package dependencies - category:(i.e. the devel tarball belongs in
> XFree86 and in Devel) and requires: (i.e. the server p
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Burrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:49 AM
> Is it possible to have multiple packages in a subdirectory and
> setup.hint file? Or does each package needs its own directory?
Each package needs it's own directory.
> F
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> Yep, as Robert indicated, this has been possible for a while.
>
> For Cygwin/XFree86, what I'd like to do is have you all come up with
> a few .tar.bz2 files which install into a /usr/X11R6,
> /etc/X11, etc.
>
I repackaged the current .tgz files as .tar.bz2 files.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:39:18AM -0400, Harold Hunt wrote:
>Chris,
>
>Did we ever get "meta" packages enabled in Cygwin setup that are essentially
>file-less packages (e.g. XFree86 Minimum Install, XFree86 Standard Install,
>etc.) that depend on other packages?
Yep, as Robert indicated, this ha
> -Original Message-
> From: Harold Hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 3:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?
>
>
> Chris,
>
> Did we ever get "meta" pack
EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:57:00PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
> >>I would love for someone
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:57:00PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
>>I would love for someone to post a proposal for inclusion of a XFree86
>>package to the cygwin-apps mailing list using the guidelines at
>>http://cygwin.com/setup.html but so far no one has been willing to do
>>that.
>
>The first step
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> The base cygwin install provides, er, a base cygwin install. That's the
> default for the Cygwin installation. There is currently no XFree86
> package in the cygwin installation at all.
>
They could create a custom install if they wanted. The Cygwin setup
progra
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 5:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: info: single install xfree86 + minimal cygwin?
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Green, Keith wrote:
>However, we wo
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:02:06PM -0400, Green, Keith wrote:
>However, we would prefer to give customers an environment they could
>use for this. Some months ago I downloaded cygwin/xfree86 onto my
>system (with some help) and installed it on my pc. It appears to
>support everything we want to
We have an application that requires an X-Server. The application was
developed on SGI,
but has been successfully ported to Linux and Sun. We also run it on PC's
using the Exceed.
However, we would prefer to give customers an environment they could use for
this. Some
months ago I downloaded c
34 matches
Mail list logo
