Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
I would appreciate further voting and/or reviewing to get this editor which works fine under cygwin into the distribution. OK this is a +1 vote and it does indeed work fine. However, there are a couple of packaging issues. So that's 3 now, thank you very much. I will take care of the packaging issues and probably offer an updated package with my next release of mined. I'm still not sure: Do you comments count as a review as well or do I need an additional review? *you have a (plain text?) file /usr/share/info/mined.hlp and I'm not sure if this is a problem. I guess the update-info script only looks for .info files, but it would probably be better to put it in something like /usr/share/mined/mined.hlp or /usr/share/mined/guide.hlp so it doesn't get lost in all the noise. I hesitated to create an application-specific directory for just one file but apparently that's OK and I will do it this way. *the source doesn't actually create the Cygwin .tar.bz2 package, this isn't a requirement but I believe it's relatively straightforward with the generic-build-script What is the generic-build-script and where do I find it? And what make target would be expected to generate the binary package? Thanks for the package and I think once these minor issues are cleared up it is ready to go. And, as I believe cfg once said, there can never be enough editors in the Cygwin distro. (Not to mention CJK capable ones.) Thanks and kind regards, Thomas Wolff Dr. Thomas Wolff, [EMAIL PROTECTED], +49-30-386-23419 Siemens ICM N AS RD C 2 Siemensdamm 50, D-13629 Berlin, Germany
Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Thomas Wolff wrote: I would appreciate further voting and/or reviewing to get this editor which works fine under cygwin into the distribution. OK this is a +1 vote and it does indeed work fine. However, there are a couple of packaging issues. So that's 3 now, thank you very much. I will take care of the packaging issues and probably offer an updated package with my next release of mined. I'm still not sure: Do you comments count as a review as well or do I need an additional review? That was a review, AFAICS. You'll need another one that says Good to go before the package can be uploaded. *you have a (plain text?) file /usr/share/info/mined.hlp and I'm not sure if this is a problem. I guess the update-info script only looks for .info files, but it would probably be better to put it in something like /usr/share/mined/mined.hlp or /usr/share/mined/guide.hlp so it doesn't get lost in all the noise. I hesitated to create an application-specific directory for just one file but apparently that's OK and I will do it this way. That's the purpose of /usr/share. *the source doesn't actually create the Cygwin .tar.bz2 package, this isn't a requirement but I believe it's relatively straightforward with the generic-build-script What is the generic-build-script... The generic-build-script is a template for package build scripts with a uniform command-line interface. It also takes care of some minor details of the resulting package tarball structure, both binary and source, so that you have more chances of getting a good to go review. There's also a generic-readme template for a Cygwin-specific package README. ...and where do I find it? See the Method Two section of http://cygwin.com/setup.html. The example build script link will get you the latest CVS version of the generic-build-script. The generic readme link will give you the generic-readme template, also from CVS. You can either use those links to periodically update to the latest CVS (as we plan to add more features), or stick with the current versions. And what make target would be expected to generate the binary package? I think it might be worth for the following info to appear in the above document as well... The generic-build-script expects the default target in the Makefile to build the whole package *outside of the source directory*. It also expects an install target that will install everything needed for the binary package in the directory tree relative to $DESTDIR (I found that it is usually necessary to modify the Makefile's install target to allow this). You'll also need a working configure script. If your package doesn't have a configure script, you can use the lnconf.sh script at http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/packaging/templates/lnconf.sh?content-type=text/plaincvsroot=cygwin-apps (just rename it to configure). If you have other issues with the generic-build-script, please feel free to ask this list for help. We also appreciate generic-build-script patches that make it more generic (i.e., minimize the modifications necessary for most packages). HTH, Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster. -- Patrick Naughton
Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
On Jun 10 19:35, Charles Wilson wrote: Not that I'm complaining -- I'm just re-iterating cgf's point: not every ITP'ed package makes it into the distro; even from long-time maintainers. But you now have a chance ;-) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Co-Project Leader mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
I would appreciate further voting and/or reviewing to get this editor which works fine under cygwin into the distribution. As others have noted, unfortunately the best way is to bug the list. I'm afraid that personally I am using Linux more and more and so doing fewer reviews, but I have a few minutes this morning so I'll check it out.
Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
I would appreciate further voting and/or reviewing to get this editor
which works fine under cygwin into the distribution.
OK this is a +1 vote and it does indeed work fine. However, there are
a couple of packaging issues.
*you have the files named mined-2000.9{,-src}.tar.bz2 while Cygwin
packages have the naming scheme foo-version-release.tar.bz2. Since
this is the first Cygwin release, it should be
mined-2000.9-1{,-src}.tar.bz2.
*there should be a /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/mined.README for any
Cygwin-specific issues (does it require CYGWIN=tty? does it work
better in rxvt than console?) and build instructions (such as the fact
that it requires gcc, make, and ncurses-devel to build); official
website and contact info wouldn't be bad to put in either
*you have a (plain text?) file /usr/share/info/mined.hlp and I'm not
sure if this is a problem. I guess the update-info script only looks
for .info files, but it would probably be better to put it in
something like /usr/share/mined/mined.hlp or
/usr/share/mined/guide.hlp so it doesn't get lost in all the noise.
*the source doesn't have any Cygwin-specific README or patches but
builds fine so that's OK as long as you put build instructions in
/usr/share/doc/Cygwin/mined.README
*the source doesn't actually create the Cygwin .tar.bz2 package, this
isn't a requirement but I believe it's relatively straightforward with
the generic-build-script
Thanks for the package and I think once these minor issues are cleared
up it is ready to go. And, as I believe cfg once said, there can never
be enough editors in the Cygwin distro. (Not to mention CJK capable
ones.)
Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:26:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering how this voting and package acceptance process would be working. I had proposed my Unicode and CJK capable text editor with message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00202.html and there was 1 vote pro since then. I would appreciate further voting and/or reviewing to get this editor which works fine under cygwin into the distribution. You can certainly lobby for your package to be voted on but the fact that you only got one pro vote means that, for now, your package doesn't go in. That's what the voting process is for. If every ITP generated an automatic inclusion in the cygwin release then we wouldn't need a voting process at all. Sorry. cgf
Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:26:05PM +0200, Thomas.Wolff wrote: I was wondering how this voting and package acceptance process would be working. I had proposed my Unicode and CJK capable text editor with message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00202.html and there was 1 vote pro since then. I would appreciate further voting and/or reviewing to get this editor which works fine under cygwin into the distribution. You can certainly lobby for your package to be voted on but the fact that you only got one pro vote means that, for now, your package doesn't go in. That's what the voting process is for. If every ITP generated an automatic inclusion in the cygwin release then we wouldn't need a voting process at all. Sorry. cgf Well, me lacking the time (and the resources) to do this, perhaps I should just shut up, but someone else has already asked for a PPL. Without it, I frankly don't recall whether I already voted for MinEd, but if I didn't, here's my +1 HTH, Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster. -- Patrick Naughton
Re: Requesting vote / review for submitted package
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:26:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering how this voting and package acceptance process would be working. I had proposed my Unicode and CJK capable text editor with message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00202.html and there was 1 vote pro since then. I would appreciate further voting and/or reviewing to get this editor which works fine under cygwin into the distribution. You can certainly lobby for your package to be voted on but the fact that you only got one pro vote means that, for now, your package doesn't go in. That's what the voting process is for. If every ITP generated an automatic inclusion in the cygwin release then we wouldn't need a voting process at all. FWIW, I've got -- what? 30? -- packages in cygwin. And some of my ITPs didn't get the required number of votes -- which is why I don't have 35. So there's no conspiracy to keep new maintainers out of the club -- it's just that, sometimes, few people see the value in yet-another-package-for-???. sniff. pout Not that I'm complaining -- I'm just re-iterating cgf's point: not every ITP'ed package makes it into the distro; even from long-time maintainers. -- Chuck
