RE: Pending packages status

[Morrison, John]

(sorry Pavel, ment to sent to list!)

> From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> 1. doxygen
> 
> version: 1.2.18-1
> status : reviewed, fixed package is available for review
> reviews: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-09/msg00107.html
> votes  : 4 (Joshua, Lapo, Nicholas and Robert)

You can add me to this :)

J.

> url: 
> http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-p
> ackage/doxygen-1.2.18-1-package.tgz


===
Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may
not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed
to any third party without our permission.  There is no intention to
create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use
of this email.

Experian Limited (registration number 653331).  
Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF

RE: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Morrison, John wrote:

> > 1. doxygen
> > 
> > version: 1.2.18-1
> > votes  : 4 (Joshua, Lapo, Nicholas and Robert)
> 
> You can add me to this :)

I think it doesn't need more PRO votes, but I'll add you anyway :)

Re: Pending packages status

[Lapo Luchini]

>
>
>2. CMake
>3. tmake
>  
>
I still have to learn the difference between the two, they seems pretty 
similiar, from the ldesc...

Let's see their home website:

CMake seems to be some kind of "autoconf" but not only generates 
Makefiles but also other kind of files, this could be quite useful for 
mingw/cygwin/visualC projects, of course there exists already the win32 
version but "some of us" prefer cygwin versions (e.g. I use cygwin's 
gnupg, not win32's... this way I know where is my home directory and the 
such).
That's a vote from me.

tmake says to be sueful to "manage" Makefiles, but its sense is not 
clear to me.
Someone has some argument regarding its usefullness (I'm not saying it 
is not useful, I just want to know HOW it is useful)... and I have no 
time to download ad "experimenti with it a bit"... but this is a bit OT 
of course, in case send me a private message maybe.

Lapo

-- 
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Pending packages status

[Joshua Daniel Franklin]

I forgot to mention this earlier, but I also like the idea of the 
necessary files being in one tar, like this:

http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/tmake-1.8-1-package.tgz

Instead of three separate files (.hint, -src.tar.bz2, .tar.bz2). This
makes it easier to check out a package. Especially the setup.hint files have
had some CRLF problems. 

Could this be a new standard?

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: Pending packages status

[Ryunosuke Satoh]

This package updated without CRLF.
I'm a monkey like repeating same mistake.
I change default setting  of my editor.

Ryu [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- Original Message - 
From: "Joshua Daniel Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pending packages status


> I forgot to mention this earlier, but I also like the idea of the 
> necessary files being in one tar, like this:
> 
> 
>http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/tmake-1.8-1-package.tgz
> 
> Instead of three separate files (.hint, -src.tar.bz2, .tar.bz2). This
> makes it easier to check out a package. Especially the setup.hint files have
> had some CRLF problems. 
> 
> Could this be a new standard?
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> 

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 06:25:34AM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>I forgot to mention this earlier, but I also like the idea of the 
>necessary files being in one tar, like this:
>
>http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/tmake-1.8-1-package.tgz
>
>Instead of three separate files (.hint, -src.tar.bz2, .tar.bz2). This
>makes it easier to check out a package. Especially the setup.hint files have
>had some CRLF problems. 
>
>Could this be a new standard?

I think that anyone who uploads the files would rather have them in three separate
files.  It's easier to just say "curl -Os http://qwer/wqer.tar.bz2"; three times than
to do it once, extract it and copy the result to the correct release directory.

IMO, of course.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 03:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I think that anyone who uploads the files would rather have them in three separate
> files.  It's easier to just say "curl -Os http://qwer/wqer.tar.bz2"; three times than
> to do it once, extract it and copy the result to the correct release directory.
> 
> IMO, of course.

Morning, all.

What he said.

Rob
-- 
---
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
---



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Pending packages status

[Gareth Pearce]

> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 06:25:34AM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> >I forgot to mention this earlier, but I also like the idea of the
> >necessary files being in one tar, like this:
> >
>
>http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/tmake-
1.8-1-package.tgz
> >
> >Instead of three separate files (.hint, -src.tar.bz2, .tar.bz2). This
> >makes it easier to check out a package. Especially the setup.hint files
have
> >had some CRLF problems.
> >
> >Could this be a new standard?
>
> I think that anyone who uploads the files would rather have them in three
separate
> files.  It's easier to just say "curl -Os http://qwer/wqer.tar.bz2"; three
times than
> to do it once, extract it and copy the result to the correct release
directory.
>

Even the originator of this practice agreed (i think?) this isnt
preferable - hes merely getting around geocities limitations.

Gareth

Re: Pending packages status

[Ryunosuke Satoh]

Please consider changing maintainer. I regret doxygen was vetoed by my failure.
Many people wait for being available on cygwin.

Ryunosuke 

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:32:49AM +0900, Ryunosuke Satoh wrote:
>Please consider changing maintainer.  I regret doxygen was vetoed by my
>failure.  Many people wait for being available on cygwin.

If the consensus is that doxygen is ready for release then I'll withdraw
my veto.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 18:44, Pavel Tsekov wrote:


> 2. CMake
> 
> version: 1.4.5-1
> status : reviewed, ready for upload

Uploaded.

> 3. swig
> 
> version: 1.3.15-1
> status : update to an existing package - review is not required

Uploaded. 
swig-1.3.11-1-src.tar.bz2 and
swig-1.3.11-1.tar.bz2
removed.



> 4. pine
> 
> version: 4.44-3
> status : update to an existing package - review is not required

Uploaded. 4.44-1 files removed.

Cheers,
Rob
-- 
---
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
---



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

I made a mistake with doxygen - the status was wrong. Sorry :(
Below is the fixed information.

On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote:


1. doxygen

version: 1.2.18-1
status : reviewed, needs minor fixes
notes  : this package is currently vetoed
 (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00056.html)
reviews: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-09/msg00107.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00033.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00040.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00050.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00052.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00065.html
 http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00087.html
votes  : 5 (Joshua, John Morrison, Lapo, Nicholas and Robert)
url: 
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/doxygen-1.2.18-1-package.tgz

Re: Pending packages status

[Lapo Luchini]

>
>
>2. tmake
>
>version: 1.8-1
>status : reviewed, ready for upload once it gets the necessary votes
>reviews: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-09/msg00222.html
>votes  : 1 (Joshua)
>url: 
>http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/tmake-1.8-1-package.tgz
>
Whops, I see my message was a bit obscure, but was meant to be a vote.
Well I'll say it not "tmake seems useful enough to me to vote it".

Lapo

-- 
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Lapo Luchini wrote:

> >2. tmake
> >
> Whops, I see my message was a bit obscure, but was meant to be a vote.
> Well I'll say it not "tmake seems useful enough to me to vote it".

Ok, then ;) I'll put your vote in the next issue.

Re: Pending packages status

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> 4. rsync
> version: 2.5.5-2

> 6. agetty
> version: 2.1-1

Hi,

I've just uploaded the above two packages.  Lapo, can I remove version
2.5.4-1?

Pavel, I like your status reports!

Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:cygwin@;cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

Hello, Corinna

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > 4. rsync
> > version: 2.5.5-2

Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm
not sure that if it should be uploaded.

Re: Pending packages status

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:05:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> Hello, Corinna
> 
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:51:41AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > > 4. rsync
> > > version: 2.5.5-2
> 
> Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm
> not sure that if it should be uploaded.

Yes, I did, and I mulled over it a bit.  As far as I understood it,
the new package doesn't introduce a new regression.  It's just not
clear if it solves a specific problem.  Hmm, did I get something
wrong?

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:cygwin@;cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> > > > 4. rsync
> > > > version: 2.5.5-2
> >
> > Have you checked the thread in the 'notes' field for that package ? I'm
> > not sure that if it should be uploaded.
>
> Yes, I did, and I mulled over it a bit.  As far as I understood it,
> the new package doesn't introduce a new regression.  It's just not
> clear if it solves a specific problem.  Hmm, did I get something
> wrong?

I don't think so :) My point is that it wasn't clear if the patch is
actually necessary with latest Cygwin and if it wont hide some Cygwin bug.
>From the announcement one also can see that this patch is the only
difference to 2.5.5-1.

Btw from the original announcement that Lapo made, I see that he suggested
'a "test" period'  though I dont know if this should be interpreted that
the package should be marked 'test'.

Re: Pending packages status

[Lapo Luchini]

Yes, I did, and I mulled over it a bit.  As far as I understood it,
the new package doesn't introduce a new regression.  It's just not
clear if it solves a specific problem.  Hmm, did I get something
wrong?


I dont like that 'kind' of bug-hiding patches (nor does cgf) but I can 
confirm that the problem is still present, using rsync-2.5.5-1 and 
cygwin-1.3.15-2.
I was able to reproduce it three times in a row a little ago.

The other "news" of rsync-2.5.5-2 is the use of gcc3.2 and the "optional 
signature-checking" setup script.

--
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)

Re: Pending packages status

[Sergey Okhapkin]

> 6. initscripts
>
> version: 0.9-1
> status : reviewed; needs some packaging fixes

I did the fixes already a while ago...

Sergey Okhapkin
Somerset, NJ

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:

> > 6. initscripts
> >
> > version: 0.9-1
> > status : reviewed; needs some packaging fixes
>
> I did the fixes already a while ago...

Sorry, my mistake :( While reading the thread I got lost - and I red it
more than once :) Reading it again I've found the right post.

Re: Pending packages status

[Joshua Daniel Franklin]

--- Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 6. initscripts
> votes  : ??

Also, I voted for this. IIRC, several other people did too.
Really, it complements sysvinit so well that I'd really like
to see it on the mirrors ASAP. 

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:

> --- Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 6. initscripts
> > votes  : ??
>
> Also, I voted for this. IIRC, several other people did too.
> Really, it complements sysvinit so well that I'd really like
> to see it on the mirrors ASAP.

Ok, I missed it then. The thread is too long and several topics are
covered in it. Anyway I don't think that this package won't be included
in the distro just because I didn't succeed to properly find out how many
people voted for it. From what I see on the list, I think that Sergey's
packages are very well accepted and they'll be all included in the distro
even if the number of voters was not enough. Having so many people
reviewing this packages is also a sign that they vote for their inclusion
even if they haven't stated it explicitly.

Re: Pending packages status

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:46:42AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I think 'doxygen' and 'tmake' have been idleing for too long now. I'd like
> to remove them from this list starting with the next issue. It doesn't
> look like that just keeping them around will speed up the process of
> accepting them into the distro.

Sounds like a good idea for doxygen.  Tmake is just waiting for a
third vote besides Joshua and Lapo.  Anybody here with a strong opinion
on that?

> 3. xerces-c
> [...]
> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg9.html
>  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00048.html
>  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00047.html
> votes  : 3 (Gerrit, Gareth and Robert)

AFAICS, this package needs just another review after being patched.
Gareth, are you stepping forward, perhaps?  You had that problem
which needed the fix...

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: Pending packages status

[Earnie Boyd]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:46:42AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:


Hello,

I think 'doxygen' and 'tmake' have been idleing for too long now. I'd like
to remove them from this list starting with the next issue. It doesn't
look like that just keeping them around will speed up the process of
accepting them into the distro.



Sounds like a good idea for doxygen.  Tmake is just waiting for a
third vote besides Joshua and Lapo.  Anybody here with a strong opinion
on that?



I think a review of threads for doxygen needs accomplished.  There were 
many votes for it, and IIRC, the packages were corrected, and Chris 
removed his veto.  Note, though, I don't care either way, just trying to 
give the OP a fair chance.

Earnie.

Re: Pending packages status

[Gareth Pearce]

> > 3. xerces-c
> > [...]
> > reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg9.html
> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00048.html
> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00047.html
> > votes  : 3 (Gerrit, Gareth and Robert)
>
> AFAICS, this package needs just another review after being patched.
> Gareth, are you stepping forward, perhaps?  You had that problem
> which needed the fix...


As I told abraham in off-list communication - I've been busy for a few
days - but this weekend it should happen.
The patch hes used is identical to what i used for personal purposes so its
fine.  I'll download the packages tommorow (on my trusty28.8k) and give them
another once over.  The main issue left from before was that the source
package seemed to be missing things.

Gareth - one more day then 4 months of nothing to do... hmm better fix that.

Re: Pending packages status

[Volker Quetschke]

Hi Pavel,

1. xerces-c
...
2. xinetd
...
3. chkconfig
...

You probably missed my package proposal from yesterday:

  http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html

Bye
   Volker

--
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

1. xinetd

version: 2.3.9-1
status : not reviewed
notes  : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00069.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00249.html
votes  : ?!
url: http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/xinetd/xinetd-2.3.9-1.tar.bz2
 http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/xinetd/xinetd-2.3.9-1-src.tar.bz2
 http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/xinetd/setup.hint


packaging review:
  - some nits in the -src package
  - needs a preremove script

-
spkg doesn't seem to work properly -- the patch is VERY large.
contains these additional files (compared to the patch shipped
with the package):
  Makefile
  config.h
  config.log
  config.status
  libs/include/config.h
  libs/include/fake-getaddrinfo.h
  libs/include/libportable.h
  libs/include/m_env.h
  libs/include/misc.h
  libs/include/pset.h
  libs/include/sio.h
  libs/include/str.h
  libs/include/xlog.h
  libs/man/Sprint.3
  libs/man/m_env.3
  libs/man/misc.3
  libs/man/pset.3
  libs/man/psi.3
  libs/man/sio.3
  libs/man/strparse.3
  libs/man/strprint.3
  libs/man/strutil.3
  libs/man/xlog.3
  libs/src/misc/Makefile
  libs/src/portable/Makefile
  libs/src/pset/Makefile
  libs/src/sio/Makefile
  libs/src/str/Makefile
  libs/src/xlog/Makefile
  xinetd/Makefile
This is because xinetd-2.3.9-1.sh sets "objdir=${srcdir}".  That's okay
by me -- but if Sergey's going to build xinetd within the srcdir, then
the mkpatch) stanza should clean up these extra files before creating
the diff.  Or create an exclude file in CYGWIN-PATCHES, and use
  diff --exclude-from=${srcdir}/CYGWIN-PATCHES/diff-excludes ...
or...hmmm...ctually, the list of "offending" files is pretty short --
the libs/man, libs/include, and libs/lib directories are supposed
to be empty.  AND, there are NO other directories in the srcpkg with
the names "include", "man" or "lib".  So, simply adding these patterns
takes care of things:
  -x 'include' -x 'man' -x 'lib' \
  -x config.h -x config.log -x config.status -x Makefile \

-

should have an /etc/preremove script, to do the following
(*)  rm -f /etc/xinetd.d/*
(*)  rmdir /etc/xinetd.d
(*)  rm -f /etc/xinetd.conf
  rm -f /usr/bin/xinetd-config
  chkconfig --del xinetd 2>&1 >/dev/null
  rm -f /etc/rc.d/init.d/xinetd

(*) since these come from the embedded sharutil archive, take a look at
how Chris's gcc-mingw package handles preremoval.  Basically, the
postinstall script makes a manifest when it untars, and then the
preremove script uses that manifest to know what to delete.

-

Now, I didn't actuallly RUN the thing.  But, assuming the above problems 
are addressed, I vote yes.

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:42:48PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Now, I didn't actuallly RUN the thing.  But, assuming the above problems 
>are addressed, I vote yes.

Ditto for me on both counts.

Thanks for your review, Chuck.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

2. chkconfig

version: 1.2.24h-1
status : reviewed
notes  : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00098.html
reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00232.html
votes  : ?! (Joshua and others)
url: http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/chkconfig/chkconfig-1.2.24h-1.tar.bz2
 http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/chkconfig/chkconfig-1.2.24h-1-src.tar.bz2
 http://users.rcn.com/sokhapkin/release/chkconfig/setup.hint


Just a couple of questions, but it has my vote AS IS.  Works fine, 
installs fine, etc.

So that's two votes...

--Chuck

--

conf)  Why --disable-nls?  Just to avoid the dependency on
  libintl?  (But you have a dynamic dependency on popt, so..)

Wait.  No, *Sergey's* binary does NOT depend on popt.  Mine does.
I guess that's just because I had popt installed, so configure
found and used it.

So why not link against popt, Sergey?  If you're worried about
dynamic dependencies, you can set LDFLAGS=-static and that will
force gcc to use the static libpopt.a...

--

install)  Any particular reason that you use
  make install prefix=... exec_prefix=...
instead of
  make install DESTDIR=... ?

(I understand why xinetd doesn't; it doesn't use automake and
doesn't grok DESTDIR.  But chkconfig is and does, so...)

-

Re: Pending packages status

[Sergey Okhapkin]

Thank you for your reviews! I will update the packages/answer your questions
tonight.

Sergey Okhapkin
Somerset, NJ

Re: Pending packages status

[Sergey Okhapkin]

From: Charles Wilson 

> spkg doesn't seem to work properly -- the patch is VERY large.
> This is because xinetd-2.3.9-1.sh sets "objdir=${srcdir}". 

You have to run "clean" before "spkg". "all" target creates a correct diff 
file. objdir have to be set to srcdir because of xinetd's makefile bugs. 
I'm going to fix these bugs in the next release - I want to build xinetd 
with a just announced RPC package.

> should have an /etc/preremove script, to do the following
> (*) rm -f /etc/xinetd.d/*
> (*) rmdir /etc/xinetd.d
> (*) rm -f /etc/xinetd.conf

I can't do that:-( Preremove script is executed on package upgrade too, 
all user-created or modified settings will be lost on upgrade. 

Regarding chkconfig:
> conf) Why --disable-nls? Just to avoid the dependency on libintl?

Because chkconfig build fails otherwice:-) --with-included-gettext 
configure option fixes the problem, but I'd like to investigate first waht 
is wrong with chkconfig's configure/Makefile.


-- 
Sergey Okhapkin
Somerset, NJ

Re: Pending packages status

[Nicholas Wourms]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:42:48PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:


Now, I didn't actuallly RUN the thing.  But, assuming the above problems 
are addressed, I vote yes.


Ditto for me on both counts.



Same here.

Re: Pending packages status

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> 1. xinetd
> 
> version: 2.3.9-1
> status : reviewed
> notes  : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00069.html
>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00249.html
> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00109.html
> votes  : 2 (Charles, Christopher)

and mine.

> 2. chkconfig
> 
> version: 1.2.24h-1
> status : reviewed
> notes  : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00098.html
> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00232.html
>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00111.html
> votes  : 2 (?!) (Charles, Joshua and others); If your vote is missing from
>  the list please let me know

Has my vote.

> 5. sunrpc
> 6. nfs-server

Definitely my vote, too.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: Pending packages status

[Hack Kampbjorn]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:

5. sunrpc
6. nfs-server



Definitely my vote, too.


Both have my vote


Corinna




--
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards

Hack Kampbjørn

Re: Pending packages status

[Sergey Okhapkin]

- Original Message -
From: "Hack Kampbjorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Pending packages status


> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:23:26PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> >>5. sunrpc
> >>6. nfs-server
> >
> >
> > Definitely my vote, too.
>
> Both have my vote


Me too. I'd like to build rpc-aware xinetd with sunrpc package.

Sergey Okhapkin
Somerset, NJ

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

Sergey Okhapkin wrote:

>>5. sunrpc

Me too. I'd like to build rpc-aware xinetd with sunrpc package.


Errrwhat do you mean?

1) xinetd can be built so that it (somehow) USES rpc calls, and you want 
to do that, or

2) you're simply proposing to include startup scripts for sunrpc (e.g. 
portmapper) in the xinetd package (e.g. in /etc/xinetd.d/)

If 1), then fine by me. If 2), ... that's a policy discussion:

where should daemon startup scripts "live"?
  a) As part of xinetd.d/ in the xinetd package,
  b) in /etc/rc.d/init.d/ as part of the initscripts package
  c) or in [/etc/rc.d/init.d|/etc/xinetd.d/] as part of whatever 
package the daemon itself is in?

IMO, (c) is the right answer.  That is, /etc/rc.d/init.d/sshd should be 
part of the sshd package, not initscripts.  Ditto 
/etc/rc.d/init.d/portmap in sunrpc package.

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Sergey Okhapkin]

- Original Message -
From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Pending packages status


>
> Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
> >> >>5. sunrpc
> > Me too. I'd like to build rpc-aware xinetd with sunrpc package.
>
> Errrwhat do you mean?
>
> 1) xinetd can be built so that it (somehow) USES rpc calls, and you want
> to do that, or
>
> 2) you're simply proposing to include startup scripts for sunrpc (e.g.
> portmapper) in the xinetd package (e.g. in /etc/xinetd.d/)

I mean 1). Xinetd has a built-in rpc support.

> where should daemon startup scripts "live"?
>a) As part of xinetd.d/ in the xinetd package,
>b) in /etc/rc.d/init.d/ as part of the initscripts package
>c) or in [/etc/rc.d/init.d|/etc/xinetd.d/] as part of whatever
> package the daemon itself is in?
>
> IMO, (c) is the right answer.  That is, /etc/rc.d/init.d/sshd should be
> part of the sshd package, not initscripts.  Ditto

Agree. I put init.d/sshd script to initscripts package as an example.

Sergey Okhapkin
Somerset, NJ

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

I just wanted to say thanks to Pavel for providing this wonderful service.

It is much appreciated.

cgf

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 11:16:20AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>1. grace
>
>version: 5.1.10-1
>status : not reviewed
>notes  : http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
>votes  : 1 (Robert)
>url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1.tar.bz2
> http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1-src.tar.bz2
> http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
>
>2. sunrpc
>
>version: 4.0-1
>status : reviewed; updated package is available
>notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00113.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00072.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00109.html
>reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00117.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00120.html
>votes  : 4 (Christopher, Corinna, Hack and Sergey)
>url: http://www.oneparticularharbor.net/cygwin/sunrpc/sunrpc-4.0-1.tar.bz2
> http://www.oneparticularharbor.net/cygwin/sunrpc/sunrpc-4.0-1-src.tar.bz2
> http://www.oneparticularharbor.net/cygwin/sunrpc/setup.hint
>
>3. nfs-server
>
>version: 2.2.47-1
>status : reviewed; the server has problems exporting /cygdrive/* ;
> some problems with symbolic links (?)
>notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00113.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00072.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00109.html
>reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00117.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00120.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-12/msg00161.html
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-01/msg00885.html
>votes  : 4 (Christopher, Corinna, Hack and Sergey)
>url: 
>http://www.oneparticularharbor.net/cygwin/nfs-server/nfs-server-2.2.47-1.tar.bz2
> 
>http://www.oneparticularharbor.net/cygwin/nfs-server/nfs-server-2.2.47-1-src.tar.bz2
> http://www.oneparticularharbor.net/cygwin/nfs-server/setup.hint

Re: Pending packages status

[Daniel Bößwetter]

Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp. 
TCM).

My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe 
this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o)

TCM-Testers welcome (anyway)

Regards,
Daniel

Pavel Tsekov wrote:

[...]
6. TCM

version: 2.20-1
status : not reviewed
notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html
votes  : 2 (Christopher and Lapo)
url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2
http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint
 



--
Daniel Boesswetter, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
peppermind - Network Neue Medien, http://www.peppermind.de
Hirschgartenallee 25, D-80639 Muenchen			
Tel. +49 89 17860 352, Fax. +49 89 178 1235

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:

> Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp. 
> TCM).
> 
> My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe 
> this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o)
> 
> TCM-Testers welcome (anyway)

Please, be patient :) The process of reviewing usually takes some time. 
First you need people interested in the package and second this people 
need to have some spare time, that they want to invest in reviewing the 
package. You submitted TCM for review 11 days ago - according to the 
standards of this list the time to worry has not yet come :)

Thanks! :)

Re: Pending packages status

[Daniel Bößwetter]

Please, be patient with an impatient newbie :)

Thanx,
Daniel

Pavel Tsekov wrote:


On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:

 

Little reminder: I haven't read anything about any of these lately (esp. 
TCM).

My admin used to say that the best network is one with no users. Maybe 
this is true for software projects and testers as well ... :o)

TCM-Testers welcome (anyway)
   


Please, be patient :) The process of reviewing usually takes some time. 
First you need people interested in the package and second this people 
need to have some spare time, that they want to invest in reviewing the 
package. You submitted TCM for review 11 days ago - according to the 
standards of this list the time to worry has not yet come :)

Thanks! :)
 



--
Daniel Boesswetter, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
peppermind - Network Neue Medien, http://www.peppermind.de

Re: Pending packages status

[Joshua Daniel Franklin]

Just a FYI:

--- Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. LPRng
> 4. ifhp
> 7. par

I vote for all 3 of these (assuming they work). I plan to
review when I get the chance but I've got a big project right now.

> 1. grace
> 6. TCM

I don't have X11 installed to review these.

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re: Pending packages status

[Marcel Telka]

Napísané dňa 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov):
> 1. grace
> 2. nfs-server
> 3. LPRng
> 4. ifhp
> 5. TCM
> 6. par
> 7. pdksh

There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(.
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html


Regards.

-- 
+---+
| Marcel Telka   e-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
|homepage: http://telka.sk/ |
|jabber:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+---+

Re: Pending packages status

[Nicholas Wourms]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Napísané dňa 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov):


1. grace
2. nfs-server
3. LPRng
4. ifhp
5. TCM
6. par
7. pdksh



There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(.
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html



Not that I object, but as someone who is well aware of the 
frustration that sgml/xml processing systems cause on linux, 
shouldn't we have a complete roadmap for the potential 
cygwin system before we start checking in stylesheet 
packages?  I don't know of anyone who wouldn't agree that 
getting a working docbook system is a royal PITA.  Are we 
going to have some sort of style-sheet management 
infrastructure at some point?  Although I realize that xmlto 
is stand-alone from jade, I think we should plan for a fully 
working docbook rendering system at some point.  I really 
don't have a good solution for this, but I feel it was at 
least worth noting the possible complications that may arise 
in the future from an improperly planned stylesheet 
installation.  We should decide now on the type of layout 
that we want and what sort of management infrastructure we 
are going to use (RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, Debian, or our 
own?).  You know, an ounce of prevention...

Cheers,
Nicholas

Re: Pending packages status

[Marcel Telka]

Napísané dňa 2003.02.20 16:12, (autor: Nicholas Wourms):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Napísané dňa 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov):
> > 
> >>1. grace
> >>2. nfs-server
> >>3. LPRng
> >>4. ifhp
> >>5. TCM
> >>6. par
> >>7. pdksh
> > 
> > 
> > There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(.
> > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html
> > 
> 
> Not that I object, but as someone who is well aware of the 
> frustration that sgml/xml processing systems cause on linux, 
> shouldn't we have a complete roadmap for the potential 
> cygwin system before we start checking in stylesheet 

Why this roadmap is required? I don't understand...

We need working DocBook XML toolchain on cygwin (or at least I need :-).
So I started packaging some software which are required to satisfy my
needs.

> packages?  I don't know of anyone who wouldn't agree that 
> getting a working docbook system is a royal PITA.  Are we 
> going to have some sort of style-sheet management 
> infrastructure at some point?  Although I realize that xmlto 

xmlto is used in RH Linux too. I've no experience with jade and I'm
unable to see any relation between xmlto and jade...

> is stand-alone from jade, I think we should plan for a fully 
> working docbook rendering system at some point.  I really 
> don't have a good solution for this, but I feel it was at 
> least worth noting the possible complications that may arise 
> in the future from an improperly planned stylesheet 
> installation.  We should decide now on the type of layout 
> that we want and what sort of management infrastructure we 
> are going to use (RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, Debian, or our 
> own?).  You know, an ounce of prevention...

My infrastructure is inspired by RH Linux. Any suggestions to improve
this infrastructure are welcome.


Thank you.

-- 
+---+
| Marcel Telka   e-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
|homepage: http://telka.sk/ |
|jabber:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+---+

Re: Pending packages status

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:

> [snip]
> 10. pdksh
> ...
> votes  : 2 (Christopher and Corinna)
> [snip]

Hi,

I don't know if my vote counts, since I'm not actually a maintainer, but
I'd like to see this as an official package.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune

RE: Pending packages status

[Robb, Sam]

> 2. nfs-server
> 
> date   : 09 Dec 2002
> version: 2.2.47-1
> status : reviewed; there are several pending issues (more info
>  can be found in the nfs related threads starting after
>  Feb 11, 2003)

Just wanted to let folks know that I haven't forgotten
about this, but that other things are eating up my time
right now :-/

-Samrobb

Re: Pending packages status

[Hack Kampbjorn]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:


[snip]
10. pdksh
...
votes  : 2 (Christopher and Corinna)
[snip]


Hi,

I don't know if my vote counts, since I'm not actually a maintainer, but
I'd like to see this as an official package.
Igor
+1
In case it needs more votes 8-)
--
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
Hack Kampbjørn

Re: Pending packages status

[Danilo Turina]

5. TCM

date   : 27 Jan 2003
version: 2.20-1
status : not reviewed
notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html
votes  : 2 (Christopher and Lapo)
url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2
 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint
I tried TCM, but it seems not to work properly. After installation 
through setup, I launch it in this way:

$ tcm
could not open color info file '/usr/X11R6/share/tcm-2.20colorrgb.txt'
It seems that a slash is missing between "tcm-2.20" and "colorrgb.txt".
In addition when I try to click on the single tools I get errors like 
these (on the console):

/usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgd: not found
/usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgt: not found
I tried also to download the sources (from the TCM site I think) and to 
compile them: in that case tcm works (even if it's installed under /opt).

Ciao,

		Danilo Turina

Re: Pending packages status

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:55:45AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> 3. LPRng
> 
> date   : 21 Jan 2003
> version: 3.8.19-1
> status : reviewed; updated package available
> notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html
> votes  : 2 (Joshua and Volker)
> url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2
>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz
>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint

Has my vote.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.

Re: Pending packages status

[Daniel Bößwetter]

Hi Danilo,

thank you for testing and reporting the bugs. I'm currently working on a 
solution for the 2 problems you addressed.

A workaround would be setting TCM_HOME to /usr/X11R6, but I'll fix it in 
the source.

I'll let you know when I've got new tarballs.

Regards,
Daniel
Danilo Turina wrote:

5. TCM

date   : 27 Jan 2003
version: 2.20-1
status : not reviewed
notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html
votes  : 2 (Christopher and Lapo)
url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2
 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint


I tried TCM, but it seems not to work properly. After installation 
through setup, I launch it in this way:

$ tcm
could not open color info file '/usr/X11R6/share/tcm-2.20colorrgb.txt'
It seems that a slash is missing between "tcm-2.20" and "colorrgb.txt".
In addition when I try to click on the single tools I get errors like 
these (on the console):

/usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgd: not found
/usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgt: not found
I tried also to download the sources (from the TCM site I think) and 
to compile them: in that case tcm works (even if it's installed under 
/opt).

Ciao,

Danilo Turina

Re: Pending packages status

[Daniel Bößwetter]

Hi Danilo & *,

I've got a new release of TCM/Cygwin (source and binary) that can be 
found here:

http://www.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm_cygwin.html

Due to some changes I made, I inremented the patch-level (to 2). Pavel, 
would you please adjust the links in your next "Pending ..." mail?

Testers welcome, as usual. I tested on Win2K and XP. Both problems that 
Danilo reported are fixed.

Thanx & Kind Regards,
Daniel
Danilo Turina wrote:
5. TCM

date   : 27 Jan 2003
version: 2.20-1
status : not reviewed
notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
 http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html
votes  : 2 (Christopher and Lapo)
url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2
 http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint


I tried TCM, but it seems not to work properly. After installation 
through setup, I launch it in this way:

$ tcm
could not open color info file '/usr/X11R6/share/tcm-2.20colorrgb.txt'
It seems that a slash is missing between "tcm-2.20" and "colorrgb.txt".
In addition when I try to click on the single tools I get errors like 
these (on the console):

/usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgd: not found
/usr/X11R6/doc/tcm-2.20/bin/tgt: not found
I tried also to download the sources (from the TCM site I think) and to 
compile them: in that case tcm works (even if it's installed under /opt).

Ciao,

Danilo Turina

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:

> Hi Danilo & *,
> 
> I've got a new release of TCM/Cygwin (source and binary) that can be 
> found here:
> 
> http://www.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm_cygwin.html
> 
> Due to some changes I made, I inremented the patch-level (to 2). Pavel, 
> would you please adjust the links in your next "Pending ..." mail?

No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
package is out. Please, rename the package files.

Re: Pending packages status

[Daniel Bößwetter]

Pavel Tsekov wrote:

No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
package is out. Please, rename the package files.
 

As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
packages remain as follows:

5. TCM

date   : 27 Jan 2003
version: 2.20-1
status : reviewed; there are some problems with the binary package
notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html
reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00046.html
votes  : 2 (Christopher and Lapo)
url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2
http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint
Bye,
Daniel

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:

> Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> 
> >No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
> >package is out. Please, rename the package files.
> >  
> >
> As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
> packages remain as follows:

:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.

Re: Pending packages status

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
> 
> > Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > 
> > >No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
> > >package is out. Please, rename the package files.
> > >  
> > >
> > As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
> > packages remain as follows:
> 
> :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.

Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
preference :}.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
> > 
> > > Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > > 
> > > >No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
> > > >package is out. Please, rename the package files.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
> > > packages remain as follows:
> > 
> > :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
> 
> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
> preference :}.

Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply. Anyway, 
here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I do is really 
unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable or something 
like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1.

Re: Pending packages status

[Max Bowsher]

Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
>>>
 Pavel Tsekov wrote:

> No. You should not touch this number until the first release of
> your package is out. Please, rename the package files.
>
>
 As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the
 packages remain as follows:
>>>
>>> :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
>>
>> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
>> preference :}.
>
> Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply.
> Anyway, here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I
> do is really unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable
> or something
> like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1.

Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version.

On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current
practice.

Max.

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:53:53PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
 On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel B??wetter wrote:

> Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>
>> No. You should not touch this number until the first release of
>> your package is out. Please, rename the package files.
>>
>>
> As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the
> packages remain as follows:

 :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
>>>
>>> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
>>> preference :}.
>>
>> Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply.
>> Anyway, here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I
>> do is really unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable
>> or something
>> like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1.
>
>Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
>think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version.
>
>On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current
>practice.

I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would
be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given
some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible.  I like
being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject
if this is a recent release or not.

Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think
we should continue to work that way.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Joshua Daniel Franklin]

> 3. LPRng
> 
> date   : 21 Jan 2003
> version: 3.8.19-1
> status : reviewed; updated package available
> notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html
> votes  : 3 (Corinna, Joshua and Volker)
> url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2
>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz
>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint

It looks like this is ready as long as someone has a supported printer
to verfify that it actually works.

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

Pavel:
:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.

Max:
Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
preference :}.

Max:
Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version.
On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current
practice.

cgf:
I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would
be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given
some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible.  I like
being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject
if this is a recent release or not.
Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think
we should continue to work that way.
Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference.  It cetainly isn't mine. 
 I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid 
confusion *during the prerelease phase*.  Imagine:

"Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package"
"That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1"
"Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release.  Are you sure?"
"Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem. 
 Here's the package md5sum..."
"Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum .  Is that 
newer, or older than the mythical fourth release?"
"Yeah, sorry about that.  I gave you the md5sum of the fourth 
pre-release.  I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum 
of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?).  However, you can't 
download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth 
pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded..."

This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend 
to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to 
"test:" releases on the cygwin mirrors.  I *need* to keep pre-release 
and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or 
I'll hork off my testers...

As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too 
many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been 
"setup-installable". Thus, no problems (except for communication issues, 
as described above).

I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these 
conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list 
suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing.

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >Pavel:
> >:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
>
> Max:
> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
> preference :}.
>
> >>Max:
> >>Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
> >>think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current
> >>practice.
>
> >cgf:
> > I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would
> > be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given
> > some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible.  I like
> > being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject
> > if this is a recent release or not.
> >
> > Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think
> > we should continue to work that way.
>
> Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference.  It cetainly isn't mine.
>   I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid
> confusion *during the prerelease phase*.  Imagine:
>
> "Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package"
> "That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1"
> "Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release.  Are you sure?"
> "Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem.
>   Here's the package md5sum..."
> "Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum .  Is that
> newer, or older than the mythical fourth release?"
> "Yeah, sorry about that.  I gave you the md5sum of the fourth
> pre-release.  I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum
> of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?).  However, you can't
> download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth
> pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded..."
>
> This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend
> to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to
> "test:" releases on the cygwin mirrors.  I *need* to keep pre-release
> and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or
> I'll hork off my testers...
>
> As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too
> many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been
> "setup-installable". Thus, no problems (except for communication issues,
> as described above).
>
> I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these
> conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list
> suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing.
>
> --Chuck

IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release
numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release...
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune

Re: Pending packages status

[Max Bowsher]

Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Pavel:
>> :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it
>> is.
>
> Max:
> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly
> your preference :}.

No, this wasn't me.

>>> Max:
>>> Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be
>>> -1, and I think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely
>>> identify a version.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the
>>> current practice.
>
>> cgf:
>> I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it
>> would be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and,
>> given some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely
>> possible.  I like being able to look at an announcement and figuring
>> out from the subject if this is a recent release or not.
>>
>> Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I
>> think we should continue to work that way.
>
> Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference.  It cetainly isn't
>   mine. I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to
> avoid
> confusion *during the prerelease phase*.  Imagine:
>
> "Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package"
> "That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1"
> "Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release.  Are you sure?"
> "Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the
>   problem. Here's the package md5sum..."
> "Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum .  Is
> that newer, or older than the mythical fourth release?"
> "Yeah, sorry about that.  I gave you the md5sum of the fourth
> pre-release.  I expected that you would simply compare it to the
> md5sum
> of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?).  However, you
> can't download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the
> sixth pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded..."
>
> This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend
> to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to
> "test:" releases on the cygwin mirrors.  I *need* to keep pre-release
> and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them.
> Or
> I'll hork off my testers...
>
> As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too
> many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been
> "setup-installable". Thus, no problems (except for communication
> issues, as described above).
>
> I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these
> conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list
> suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing.

I have a suggestion:

foo-1.0-0.1
foo-1.0-0.2
foo-1.0-0.3
foo-1.0-0.4<< ok, it's ready
foo-1.0-1  << maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
  and sends a 'Please upload' email


Max.

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:08:16PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>Pavel:
>>:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
>
>Max:
>Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
>preference :}.
>
>>>Max:
>>>Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
>>>think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a 
>>>version.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current
>>>practice.
>
>>cgf:
>>I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would
>>be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given
>>some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible.  I like
>>being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject
>>if this is a recent release or not.
>>
>>Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think
>>we should continue to work that way.
>
>Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference.  It cetainly isn't mine. 
> I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid 
>confusion *during the prerelease phase*.  Imagine:

I'm sure that everyone here gets this point.  There is a *potential*
that the same need that we have for incrementing our standard releases
from -1 to -2, etc.  might be an issue for cygwin-apps.  As is said,
above "I don't remember any confusion caused by the current practice."
I suspect that's because the class of user here (at least for those
doing the review) is a few thousand steps above the standard cygwin
user and can manage with things like "date and time" rather than
-1, -2, -3.

>This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend
>to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to
>"test:" releases on the cygwin mirrors.  I *need* to keep pre-release
>and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them.
>Or I'll hork off my testers...

So, when you upload your changes, adjust the version to the next
released version.

However, I don't really care.  If you think this is the only way for
you to manage your libtool issues, then use whatever works.

>As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too 
>many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been 
>"setup-installable". Thus, no problems (except for communication issues, 
>as described above).
>
>I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these 
>conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list 
>suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing.

The cygwin user base != the cygwin-apps maintainers.  We are supposed to
be a breed apart.  That's why I don't like the idea of adding, IMO,
silly rules that every "How does it look now" release prior to the
official release needs to be incremented on the off chance that someone
here will be terminally confused and not realize that they might not
have the most up-to-date version.  I can easily imagine the "I can't
review this because you didn't bump the number from -1 to -2" cropping
up.  That just delays the process of getting a package released.

So, as usual, I opt for flexibility (anyone want to guess at my
political leanings?).  I don't think anyone should be forced to use this
method.  If it makes people more comfortable to bump their versions,
then have at it.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>I have a suggestion:
>
>foo-1.0-0.1
>foo-1.0-0.2
>foo-1.0-0.3
>foo-1.0-0.4<< ok, it's ready
>foo-1.0-1  << maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
>  and sends a 'Please upload' email

That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will grok
the .n usage.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release
numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release...
Now, I can *live* with that (but not especially *like* it).  What about 
pre-test updated versions (after a package has been officially launched 
and is part of the dist)?  [Also, 'REL = 0.x' might break the generic 
package build script; I'm not sure]

Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS 
snapshots.  So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the 
packages on the cygwin mirrors.

Yes, there are ways around even THAT.  Let VER change as it must, but 
make sure that all pre-test RELs are 0.x.  Then bump to -1,2,3,whatever 
when uploading to the cygwin mirrors.

But that seems like an awful lot of trouble, simply because a few people 
prefer (a) initial "official" packages start at REL=1, and (b) official 
packages progress in monotonic, uniform REL #s with no gaps.

IMO, that's simply insane -- no linux distribution does that.  You might 
see foo-1.3.2-2 in rawhide, followed by -4, then -9, and then -11 shows 
up in the next official Red Hat. Nobody complains.  And the post-release 
security fix for foo is -13, not -12.  Big Freaking Deal.

Oh, crap.  Are we in another interminable packaging debate?

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

Max:
Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly
your preference :}.

No, this wasn't me.
Sorry, I didn't mean to misattribute.

I have a suggestion:

foo-1.0-0.1
foo-1.0-0.2
foo-1.0-0.3
foo-1.0-0.4<< ok, it's ready
foo-1.0-1  << maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
  and sends a 'Please upload' email
Mebbe, but see my other message.

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
> > IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release
> > numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release...
>
> Now, I can *live* with that (but not especially *like* it).  What about
> pre-test updated versions (after a package has been officially launched
> and is part of the dist)?  [Also, 'REL = 0.x' might break the generic
> package build script; I'm not sure]
>
> Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS
> snapshots.  So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the
> packages on the cygwin mirrors.

Umm, Chuck, the above suggestion was intended only for different
pre-releases of the package with the *same* VER number.  If you have
different VER numbers, you already have a way of distinguishing various
pre-releases, and no need to do anything extra to that end.

> Yes, there are ways around even THAT.  Let VER change as it must, but
> make sure that all pre-test RELs are 0.x.  Then bump to -1,2,3,whatever
> when uploading to the cygwin mirrors.
>
> But that seems like an awful lot of trouble, simply because a few people
> prefer (a) initial "official" packages start at REL=1, and (b) official
> packages progress in monotonic, uniform REL #s with no gaps.
>
> IMO, that's simply insane -- no linux distribution does that.  You might
> see foo-1.3.2-2 in rawhide, followed by -4, then -9, and then -11 shows
> up in the next official Red Hat. Nobody complains.  And the post-release
> security fix for foo is -13, not -12.  Big Freaking Deal.
>
> Oh, crap.  Are we in another interminable packaging debate?
> --Chuck

FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to
the absense of release notes for packages in setup.  If there were a way
to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to
the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is.  This is
more than just a "so patch setup" issue, since there is no connection
currently between upset/setup and the announcements.
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

I'm sure that everyone here gets this point.  There is a *potential*
that the same need that we have for incrementing our standard releases
from -1 to -2, etc.  might be an issue for cygwin-apps.  As is said,
above "I don't remember any confusion caused by the current practice."
I suspect that's because the class of user here (at least for those
doing the review) is a few thousand steps above the standard cygwin
user and can manage with things like "date and time" rather than
-1, -2, -3.
True.

So, when you upload your changes, adjust the version to the next
released version.
This causes problems for me, which I won't bore you with.  Mainly having 
to do with the extreme slowness of my only remaining Windows machine, 
and rebuilding time, and having to babysit the libtool 'make check'.

However, I don't really care.  If you think this is the only way for
you to manage your libtool issues, then use whatever works.


The cygwin user base != the cygwin-apps maintainers.  We are supposed to
be a breed apart.  That's why I don't like the idea of adding, IMO,
silly rules that every "How does it look now" release prior to the
official release needs to be incremented on the off chance that someone
here will be terminally confused and not realize that they might not
have the most up-to-date version.  I can easily imagine the "I can't
review this because you didn't bump the number from -1 to -2" cropping
up.  That just delays the process of getting a package released.
Granted.  IMO, if a potential maintainer is happy to keep prerelease 
versions at a constant REL, that's his lookout.  If I bump REL everytime 
I make a minor pretest/prerelease change, that's MY lookout.

No silly rules either way.  In Pavel's original message, he was chiding 
the packager, who HAD bumped REL, to keep it constant.  *THAT's* what 
I'm  against -- forcing the maintainer/packager to do it one way, or the 
other.  BOTH "rules" have problems, and it's up to the maintainer to 
decide which set of problems she'd rather deal with -- because it's her 
job to do so; not mine or Pavel's or cgf's.

So, as usual, I opt for flexibility (anyone want to guess at my
political leanings?).  I don't think anyone should be forced to use this
method.  If it makes people more comfortable to bump their versions,
then have at it.
Yeah, what he said (I swear, I wrote my "No silly rules" paragraph 
before reading cgf's "So, as usual" one).  Wanna guess my leanings?

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Max Bowsher]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> I have a suggestion:
>>
>> foo-1.0-0.1
>> foo-1.0-0.2
>> foo-1.0-0.3
>> foo-1.0-0.4<< ok, it's ready
>> foo-1.0-1  << maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
>>  and sends a 'Please upload' email
>
> That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will grok
> the .n usage.

IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions
at all.

And upset may not order -0.* correctly, but it doesn't choke. I have a
package whose release is "0.max" currently in my local upset tree.

Max.

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:37PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> I have a suggestion:
>>>
>>> foo-1.0-0.1
>>> foo-1.0-0.2
>>> foo-1.0-0.3
>>> foo-1.0-0.4<< ok, it's ready
>>> foo-1.0-1  << maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
>>>  and sends a 'Please upload' email
>>
>> That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will grok
>> the .n usage.
>
>IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions
>at all.

Huh?  I haven't looked at the code recently but unless there has been a
change, setup does understand version numbers.  At the very least, it
reads them from files on disk when there is no setup.ini file.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 06:44, Max Bowsher wrote:


> IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse versions
> at all.
> 
> And upset may not order -0.* correctly, but it doesn't choke. I have a
> package whose release is "0.max" currently in my local upset tree.

It parses the package names. It won't choke, but it won't sort correctly
consistently.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Pending packages status

[Max Bowsher]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:37PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:18:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
 I have a suggestion:
 
 foo-1.0-0.1
 foo-1.0-0.2
 foo-1.0-0.3
 foo-1.0-0.4<< ok, it's ready
 foo-1.0-1  << maintainer rebuilds the package with release=1,
  and sends a 'Please upload' email
>>> 
>>> That's fine with me, but I don't think either upset or setup will
>>> grok the .n usage.
>> 
>> IIRC, setup works exclusively by curr/prev/test and doesn't parse
>> versions at all.
> 
> Huh?  I haven't looked at the code recently but unless there has been
> a change, setup does understand version numbers.  At the very least,
> it reads them from files on disk when there is no setup.ini file.

Ah. Seems IDRC.

Max.

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS
snapshots.  So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the
packages on the cygwin mirrors.


Umm, Chuck, the above suggestion was intended only for different
pre-releases of the package with the *same* VER number.  If you have
different VER numbers, you already have a way of distinguishing various
pre-releases, and no need to do anything extra to that end.
True -- but I brought it up simply to emphasize that the "problem space" 
is larger than I sensed was being considered. I wanted to head off the 
argument that pre-releases (or pretests) following a given version be 
numbered using tags to the preceeding release.

e.g. foo-1.3.2-3 is official

Somebody was SURE to suggest that pretests for -4 be named 
"foo-1.3.2-3a" -3b, -3c, etc.

so, I was trying to point out the problem THAT naming scheme runs into 
when I'm working on pre-release versions of foo-1.3.3.  Should they 
follow the -1.3.2-3X rule (since they 'succeed' 1.3.2-3), or the -0.x 
rule (since they will precede the first official release of 1.3.3)?

BLECH. *Yet another amendment to the rule*.  All because it's too 
difficult to write rules that cover every conceivable case.  Sometimes, 
it's okay to just say "Rules?  We don' need no steenking rules!"  and 
just tell folks to use their brains.  As cgf says, maintainers are 
supposed be a cut above, and should be able to handle these issues in 
the way most appropriate for THEIR package. [Yes, I also recognize the 
political implications of this statement; you *don't* want to get me 
started on that.  I might start quoting the Federalist papers and George 
Washington's farewell address -- and nobody wants that; incl. me.  I've 
got real work to do...]

Heck, they might use one method for their foo package, and a different 
method for their baz package.  Fine by me -- as long as it makes sense.

I'm sorry I didn't fully explain what I was trying to get across with 
that libool-DATE paragraph; I had hoped the problems would be clear by 
implication, so I wasn't explicit.  I should have been.

FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to
the absense of release notes for packages in setup.  If there were a way
to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to
the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is.  This is
more than just a "so patch setup" issue, since there is no connection
currently between upset/setup and the announcements.
Well, that's a whole 'nother issue.  I have some ideas, but they involve 
upset changes AND setup changes AND automated monitoring of 
cygwin-announce.  Icky stuff which I have no intention of coding, so 
I'll just shut up now.

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:

> Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference.  It cetainly isn't mine. 
>   I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid 
> confusion *during the prerelease phase*.  Imagine:
> 
> "Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package"
> "That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1"
> "Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release.  Are you sure?"
> "Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem. 
>   Here's the package md5sum..."
> "Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum .  Is that 
> newer, or older than the mythical fourth release?"
> "Yeah, sorry about that.  I gave you the md5sum of the fourth 
> pre-release.  I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum 
> of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?).  However, you can't 
> download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth 
> pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded..."

You're assuming that the guy has enough web space to hold all 
intermidiate releases. I've never seen this here. New packages are 
uploaded and the old ones removed.

> This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend 
> to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to 
> "test:" releases on the cygwin mirrors.  I *need* to keep pre-release 
> and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or 
> I'll hork off my testers...
> 
> As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too 
> many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been 
> "setup-installable". Thus, no problems (except for communication issues, 
> as described above).

Ok I agree with this point. I've being doing this myself each time a new 
nfs-server package was released:

1) Download the package
2) Bump its version
3) Generate setup.ini
4) Upload to my site

>From these steps the most painful (error prone maybe is better) for me was 
the generation the setup.ini since I do this manually - yes I know there 
are other ways. Of course this is just me.

My point back then, when I replied to Daniel, was that I'm not doing this 
because "I like it this way". If you think about it, there is no gain for 
me to prefer one way over the other. This was my understanding of how the 
release process should work and it was based on the documentation on how to
make packages.

I'm not some freak who cant accept other peoples opinions. I'm open and
since I see that my way is unacceptable for many of the people here, I
agree that if a maintainer wants to bump the number then it is up to him
not me.

My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget
about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities 
for which I apologise. The important thing is to keep the packages coming.

Re: Pending packages status

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Pavel Tsekov wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> > Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference.  It cetainly isn't mine.
> >   I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid
> > confusion *during the prerelease phase*.  Imagine:
> >
> > "Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package"
> > "That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1"
> > "Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release.  Are you sure?"
> > "Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem.
> >   Here's the package md5sum..."
> > "Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum .  Is that
> > newer, or older than the mythical fourth release?"
> > "Yeah, sorry about that.  I gave you the md5sum of the fourth
> > pre-release.  I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum
> > of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?).  However, you can't
> > download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth
> > pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded..."
>
> You're assuming that the guy has enough web space to hold all
> intermidiate releases. I've never seen this here. New packages are
> uploaded and the old ones removed.

One issue here is caching servers.  I've been bitten many times by them,
changing a file on the server, but then getting an old copy for about 3
hours until the cache is updated (buggy cache, of course, but oh, so
possible).  Changing the name circumvents this.

> [snip]
> My point back then, when I replied to Daniel, was that I'm not doing this
> because "I like it this way". If you think about it, there is no gain for
> me to prefer one way over the other. This was my understanding of how the
> release process should work and it was based on the documentation on how to
> make packages.
>
> I'm not some freak who cant accept other peoples opinions. I'm open and
> since I see that my way is unacceptable for many of the people here, I
> agree that if a maintainer wants to bump the number then it is up to him
> not me.

Noone implied you were.  If the documentation suggests that this is the
only way, then the documentation should be changed...

> My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget
> about them.
> [snip]
> The important thing is to keep the packages coming.

Amen. :-)
Igor
-- 
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
  |\  _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-.  ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'   Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune

Re: Pending packages status

[Charles Wilson]

Pavel Tsekov wrote:

My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget
about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities 
for which I apologise. The important thing is to keep the packages coming.
Don't go away mad.  I heartily appreciate your efforts to prevent 
contributions from getting lost.  (It's not like we have so many 
contributors that we can afford to alienate them by forgetting about 
their contribution).

I took your [original] comments to be just like those of any other 
reviewer: subject to disagreement (and revision).  We can 
agree/disagree/argue on the list about specific requirements for 
specific packages or for packages in general; the goal is to get good 
packages into the distribution.  IMO, this entire discussion is 
unrelated to the admirable job you're doing with the 
list-of-pending-contributions.  [Which is now up to almost 10, 
unfortunately -- and I've got two more to add soon ]

--Chuck

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:59:29PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to
>>the absense of release notes for packages in setup.  If there were a way
>>to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to
>>the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is.  This is
>>more than just a "so patch setup" issue, since there is no connection
>>currently between upset/setup and the announcements.
>
>Well, that's a whole 'nother issue.  I have some ideas, but they involve 
>upset changes AND setup changes AND automated monitoring of 
>cygwin-announce.  Icky stuff which I have no intention of coding, so 
>I'll just shut up now.

I'd *love* to be able to have setup.exe pull up some kind of more descriptive
text (beyond ldesc) about the stuff it's installing.  And, I'd love for setup.exe
to be able to pull up the release notes when it was done installing.

It seems like a nice idea to me.  Why won't someone help me?  Surely
this is a good idea! I'd do it myself but I don't know how to type and I
don't have a computer.  You have to remember that not everyone with good
ideas has access to a computer.  It seems like sometimes you gurus forget
these simple things.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:26:10PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>My work here is simple - keep a list of packages so people won't forget
>about them. Now I see that I've overestimated my responsibilities 
>for which I apologise.

I don't think you've overestimated your responsibilities.  I think the
policy wasn't clear and you've helped clarify it.

>The important thing is to keep the packages coming.

Yep and you are a huge help in ensuring that they do.

cgf

Re: Pending packages status

[Volker Quetschke]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!

| 1. grace
|
| date   : 25 Nov 2002
| version: 5.1.10-1
| status : not reviewed
| notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
| votes  : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
| url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1.tar.bz2
|  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1-src.tar.bz2
|  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are:
~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
Volker

- --
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+a1ZXPTXJup+KeF0RAvfoAJ9yaTqRlmzu7jjHA0FOs13mfoaRIwCgvPSf
jme7ItBWUUUmZUK+exVJcyA=
=PQph
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

RE: Pending packages status (update)

["Schaible, Jörg"]

Hi Pavel,

> As Volker Quetschke pointed out, the packages status list I've posted 
> earlier today was missing a package. Here is an updated version which 
> includes the missing package.

what happened to doxygen ?

Regards,
Jörg

RE: Pending packages status (update)

[Pavel Tsekov]

> what happened to doxygen ?

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00226.html

Someone needs to review it, but noone seems to be interested in doing so.

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!

Re: Pending packages status (fwd)

[Pavel Tsekov]

It seems like you've replied only to me and not the list. I'm forwarding 
you message there.

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:42:26 +0100
From: Volker Quetschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pending packages status

Hi!

> 3. LPRng
> 
> date   : 21 Jan 2003
> version: 3.8.19-1
> status : reviewed; updated package available
> notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html
> votes  : 1 (Joshua)
> url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2
>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz
>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint
This has my vote, a lpr would be nice.

Volker

LPRng was Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:

> > 3. LPRng
> > 
> > date   : 21 Jan 2003
> > version: 3.8.19-1
> > status : reviewed; updated package available
> > notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
> >  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
> > reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html
> > votes  : 3 (Corinna, Joshua and Volker)
> > url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2
> >  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz
> >  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint
> 
> It looks like this is ready as long as someone has a supported printer
> to verfify that it actually works.

I've just verified the source package. There are some problems:

1) An autom4te.cache dir is present - should be removed.

2) There is an extra space on line 2242 (the place in the configure script
   which produces an error - very easy to fix.

3) No CYGWIN-PATCHES dir and no patch. The maintainer obviously 
   regenerated the configuration files and i think if not anything
   else this requires a patch.

grace Review (Re: Pending packages status)

[Max Bowsher]

Volker Quetschke wrote:

>> date   : 25 Nov 2002
>> version: 5.1.10-1
>> status : not reviewed
>> notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
>> votes  : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
>
> I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are:
> ~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
> ~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
> ~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint

I've never used grace, but it's a pity for a package to have votes but no
review, so I thought I'd take a look at the packaging.

Here are some issues I found:

You say "* No patches necessary." in usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README, but you do
patch examples/Makefile and examples/dotest

/usr/grace/gracerc.user will be overwritten on uninstall/upgrade. Based on
the comments in it, that might be ok, but it might be nice to add an extra
comment indicating this.

I don't think changing the default editor to nano is right. I think you
should leave it alone, and everyone can set GRACE_EDITOR to their own
preference. I certainly don't think grace should depend on nano.
[Yes, I am a vim addict]

There is some html documentation in the source package. How about installing
it?


Max.

Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status

[Max Bowsher]

>>> 3. LPRng
>>>
>>> date   : 21 Jan 2003
>>> version: 3.8.19-1
>>> status : reviewed; updated package available
>>> notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00215.html
>>>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00172.html
>>> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00061.html
>>> votes  : 3 (Corinna, Joshua and Volker)
>>> url: https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1.tar.bz2
>>>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/LPRng-3.8.19-1-src.tgz
>>>  https://www.as.cmu.edu/~geek/LPRng/setup.hint

> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>> It looks like this is ready as long as someone has a supported
>> printer to verfify that it actually works.

Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> I've just verified the source package. There are some problems:
>
> 1) An autom4te.cache dir is present - should be removed.
>
> 2) There is an extra space on line 2242 (the place in the configure
>script which produces an error - very easy to fix.
>
> 3) No CYGWIN-PATCHES dir and no patch. The maintainer obviously
>regenerated the configuration files and i think if not anything
>else this requires a patch.

IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool commands
would be better.

Max.

Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status

[Earnie Boyd]

Max Bowsher wrote:
IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool commands
would be better.
A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require 
autotools.  IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly is 
autoconf mandated.  The configure script exists for the non-maintainer.

Earnie.

Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status

[Max Bowsher]

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> 
>> IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool
>> commands would be better.
>> 
> 
> A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require
> autotools.  IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly
> is autoconf mandated.  The configure script exists for the
> non-maintainer. 

You're right - I just hate the *huge* patches that result from this.

Max.

Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status

[Earnie Boyd]

Max Bowsher wrote:
Earnie Boyd wrote:

Max Bowsher wrote:

IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool
commands would be better.
A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require
autotools.  IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly
is autoconf mandated.  The configure script exists for the
non-maintainer. 


You're right - I just hate the *huge* patches that result from this.

Now that just happens to be a cygwin-apps Style 2 mandate, I believe. ;)

Earnie.

Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status

[Cygwin \(Robert Collins\)]

> >>Max Bowsher wrote:
> >>
> >>>IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool
> >>>commands would be better.
> >>>
> >>
> >>A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require
> >>autotools.  IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it
certainly
> >>is autoconf mandated.  The configure script exists for the
> >>non-maintainer.
> >
> >
> > You're right - I just hate the *huge* patches that result from this.
>



Rabbit, meet the rabbit hole.

Rob

Re: LPRng was Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:

Max:
> >> IMO, a simple bootstrap.sh containing the appropriate autotool
> >> commands would be better.
> >> 
> > 
Earnie:
> > A source release for a binary package isn't supposed to require
> > autotools.  IIRC, this is GNU standards mandated; if not it certainly
> > is autoconf mandated.  The configure script exists for the
> > non-maintainer. 
> 
Max:
> You're right - I just hate the *huge* patches that result from this.

Maybe the maintainer can help us here. I'm not sure that he regenerated 
the auto stuff. I thought that he might have done this based on the 
presence of the autom4te.cache dir.

Also since there is no patch we can only guess why was the regeneration, 
if any, necessary.

Btw for mc I needed to regenerate and this didn't add too much weight to 
the patch.

Re: grace Review (Re: Pending packages status)

[Volker Quetschke]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Max,

|>I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are:
|>~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
|>~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
|>~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
|
| I've never used grace, but it's a pity for a package to have votes but no
| review, so I thought I'd take a look at the packaging.
Thanks!
| Here are some issues I found:
|
| You say "* No patches necessary." in usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README, but
you do
| patch examples/Makefile and examples/dotest
Ah, well, these patches only fix the make check command, this is not
needed if you don't want to do a make check. I'll change that line in
the README.
| /usr/grace/gracerc.user will be overwritten on uninstall/upgrade. Based on
| the comments in it, that might be ok, but it might be nice to add an extra
| comment indicating this.
Yes, I will add a hint that /usr/grace/gracerc and
/usr/grace/gracerc.user will be overwritten. If the user wants to keep
his/her settings between updates he should put the gracerc and
gracerc.user in a ./grace/ directory.
| I don't think changing the default editor to nano is right. I think you
| should leave it alone, and everyone can set GRACE_EDITOR to their own
| preference. I certainly don't think grace should depend on nano.
| [Yes, I am a vim addict]
Ok, ok, I will change that back to the default and use the GRACE_EDITOR
variable from now on ;-)
| There is some html documentation in the source package. How about
installing
| it?
It's installed, it is in /usr/grace/doc, available also from grace with
the help menu. Unfortunately I had to change the helpbrowser to lynx
because there is no XmHTML or libhelp package in cygwin at the moment
and one of those libraries is needed for the internal helpviewer.
I will upload a new version shortly.

Thanks
~Volker
- --
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+a3EQPTXJup+KeF0RAr5QAKDBm2FmFIqOcviA1b0F4pqjUgYnCwCgiuFN
DtRvDYlOqhYaGURZDFxUNNE=
=DILf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: grace Review (Re: Pending packages status)

[Max Bowsher]

Volker Quetschke wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
>>> I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are:
>>> ~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
>>> ~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
>>> ~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
>>
>> I've never used grace, but it's a pity for a package to have votes
>> but no review, so I thought I'd take a look at the packaging.
> Thanks!

No problem.

>> Here are some issues I found:
>>
>> You say "* No patches necessary." in usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README, but
> you do
>> patch examples/Makefile and examples/dotest
> Ah, well, these patches only fix the make check command, this is not
> needed if you don't want to do a make check. I'll change that line in
> the README.
>
>> /usr/grace/gracerc.user will be overwritten on uninstall/upgrade.
>> Based on the comments in it, that might be ok, but it might be nice
>> to add an extra comment indicating this.
> Yes, I will add a hint that /usr/grace/gracerc and
> /usr/grace/gracerc.user will be overwritten. If the user wants to keep
> his/her settings between updates he should put the gracerc and
> gracerc.user in a ./grace/ directory.
>
>> I don't think changing the default editor to nano is right. I think
>> you should leave it alone, and everyone can set GRACE_EDITOR to
>> their own preference. I certainly don't think grace should depend on
>> nano. [Yes, I am a vim addict]
> Ok, ok, I will change that back to the default and use the
> GRACE_EDITOR variable from now on ;-)

Good, good, and good!
Don't forget to remove the nano dependency from setup.hint

>> There is some html documentation in the source package. How about
>> installing it?
> It's installed, it is in /usr/grace/doc, available also from grace
> with
> the help menu. Unfortunately I had to change the helpbrowser to lynx
> because there is no XmHTML or libhelp package in cygwin at the moment
> and one of those libraries is needed for the internal helpviewer.

Oh, ok. Perhaps you could s!doc!/usr/grace/doc!g in the README, so that
grace newbies (like me) are more likely to find it?

Max.

Re: grace Review (Re: Pending packages status)

[Volker Quetschke]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!

|>>>I updated to grace 5.1.12, the new urls are:
|>>>~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
|>>>~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
|>>>~   http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
The urls above now points to the new packages.

Volker
- --
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+a3z3PTXJup+KeF0RAp17AKCLAcPqjTFraw9GfwuR77AeIYRNzwCg0SZB
ibq0035glLcSt3aUiaX6c/Q=
=it2S
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)

[Volker Quetschke]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!

| 1. grace
|
| date   : 25 Nov 2002
| version: 5.1.12-1
| status : updated package available for review
| notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
| reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
| votes  : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
| url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
|  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
|  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
Max did a review in:
~ 
and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url
mentioned above.
Volker

- --
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+b4UXPTXJup+KeF0RAqIlAKDOR4+VwYFNpK+OFTtzbeqzZMtflgCZAduH
xr73aa0wX+sBwUiAoIOcWn0=
=MBtt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)

[Max Bowsher]

Volker Quetschke wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi!
>
>> 1. grace
>>
>> date   : 25 Nov 2002
>> version: 5.1.12-1
>> status : updated package available for review
>> notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
>> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
>> votes  : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
>> url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
>>  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
>>  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
>
> Max did a review in:
> ~ 
>
> and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url
> mentioned above.

I am interested by this package, but I haven't really looked very hard at it
yet.

Sorry, Volker - I'll try to finish off my review ASAP.

Max.

Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)

[Max Bowsher]

Volker Quetschke wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> 1. grace
>>
>> date   : 25 Nov 2002
>> version: 5.1.12-1
>> status : updated package available for review
>> notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
>> reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
>> votes  : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
>> url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
>>  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
>>  http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
>
> Max did a review in:
> ~ 
>
> and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url
> mentioned above.

OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes:

- The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on reinstall
is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest
putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves.

- You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This would
make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed
documentation.

Neither of these are critical - the current packages could be released
as-is - but both of the above are minor improvements that should be
considered.


Max.

Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)

[Earnie Boyd]

Max Bowsher wrote:
Volker Quetschke wrote:

Hi!


1. grace

date   : 25 Nov 2002
version: 5.1.12-1
status : updated package available for review
notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
votes  : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
Max did a review in:
~ 
and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url
mentioned above.


OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes:

- The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on reinstall
is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest
putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves.
IIRC, this is a major flaw.  Package configuration files are to not be 
overwritten upon reinstall.  You need to use postinstall scripts to 
install initial configuration files and not overwrite exsiting 
configuration files.

- You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This would
make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed
documentation.
Uhm, you mean /usr/doc/grace or do you mean /usr/doc/Cygwin/grace.README?

Neither of these are critical - the current packages could be released
as-is - but both of the above are minor improvements that should be
considered.
Not following these conventions are critical IMNSHO.

Earnie.

Re: Pending packages status (10 Mar 2003)

[Volker Quetschke]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!

|>>1. grace
|>>
|>>date   : 25 Nov 2002
|>>version: 5.1.12-1
|>>status : updated package available for review
|>>notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html
|>>reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00254.html
|>>votes  : 2 (Lapo and Robert)
|>>url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1.tar.bz2
|>> http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.12-1-src.tar.bz2
|>> http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setup.hint
|>
|>Max did a review in:
|>~ 
|>
|>and all proposed changes are applied to the packages at the url
|>mentioned above.
|
| OK, I've completed the review I began there. I have the following notes:
|
| - The warning about gracerc and gracerc.user being overwritten on
reinstall
| is in the README. I'm not sure very many people will read that. I suggest
| putting it in the comments actually in the files themselves.
Good idea, done!.

| - You could do change doc to /usr/grace/doc in the README file. This would
| make it more clear to grace newbies where to find the installed
| documentation.
I forgot that the README gets copied to /usr/doc/grace-5.1.12/ , its
original place is /usr/grace/. I will patch /usr/grace/doc into this
file. Done!
All changes are in the packages at the url mentioned above.

Volker

- --
PGP/GPG key  (ID: 0x9F8A785D)  available  from  wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913  9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+cIAxPTXJup+KeF0RAp/qAJ4hhrKIYqGneFvvPs43GgiKbLkxdQCfdqLN
i5kwKh0KUAto6mcMovd4NSk=
=cWlL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-