Hi
I would like to contribute and maintain the
'graphviz/libgraphviz4/libgraphviz-devel/graphviz-doc/graphviz-contrib'
packages.
o http://www.graphviz.org/ (Homepage)
o http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-2.18.tar.gz (Download
loca
> Warren Young writes:
> Taking over maintainership of this package from Max Bowsher. Ported
> from g-b-s to cygport and updated from 1.95.8 to 2.0.1, so I'd like at
> least one GTG before I post the RFU message.
Builds fine from source, but the cygwin specific patch has 0 bytes
> Warren Young writes:
> Taking over maintainership of this package from Max Bowsher. Ported
> build from g-b-s to cygport and updated from 3.5.1 to 3.5.6, so I'd
> like at least one GTG before I post the RFU message.
Builds fine from source, but the cygwin specific patch has 0
Warren Young wrote on 02 May 2008 00:10:
> I can't get graphviz to build cleanly under cygport yet.
Looks like you may not need to need to! Volker's sense of timing is
impeccable :)
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
Dr. Volker Zell wrote on 02 May 2008 09:20:
> Hi
>
> I would like to contribute and maintain the
> 'graphviz/libgraphviz4/libgraphviz-devel/graphviz-doc/graphviz-contrib'
> packages.
Your sense of timing is perfect. I just spent an evening trying to build
this myself and finally got going wi
Max Bowsher wrote on 02 May 2008 02:45:
> Warren Young wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> requires: cygwin libpng12
>>>
>>> The requires: line looks wrong to meWhy libpng?
>>
>> Ask Max. :)
>
> Last time I looked there was a copy of libpng embedded in the doxygen
> source tree. Building anoth
> Warren Young writes:
> The -2 on the package name is because this is pretty similar to
> Yaakov's cygwin-ports version, which is using -1. If that's
> irrelevant, I can change it to -1
I would set it to -1
Ciao
Volker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Dave Korn wrote:
| Your sense of timing is perfect. I just spent an evening trying to
build
| this myself and finally got going with some half-working crudely
limping along
| static build...
It's been in Ports for over a year...
http://cygwin-p
Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
It's been in Ports for over a year...
Yes, but your version builds a whole bunch of bindings and such that you
can't do using only packages in the official Cygwin distro. When I said
I couldn't get graphviz to build, it's because I was still in the
process of r
Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
Builds fine from source, but the cygwin specific patch has 0 bytes. So
there is no README and the .hint files are missing
Yeah, I've been meaning to ask about that...
Is there a way I can get Cygport to generate this patch for me? It
seems like it should be able to ta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Warren Young wrote:
| Is there a way I can get Cygport to generate this patch for me? It
| seems like it should be able to take the source package, the README, and
| the setup.hint and generate the patch during the prep stage. I can't
| see how to
Corinna was noticing some oddities in the release-2 area that I've just
tried to fix. The ownership of files should now default to
cyguser:cygwin from now on and that should theoretically eliminate
problems when deleting files or changing protections.
The big problem with my optimistic use of a u
As part of my effort to allow maintainers to upload their own packages
I am thinking of finally writing a package lint script which checks for
known problems in packaging.
So, I'd like to get a list of things to check for. Off the top of my head
I can think of:
- Existence of /usr/man, /usr/doc
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I know that I'm missing some obvious stuff here. What am I missing?
- setup.hint sdesc that starts with the package name
- setup.hint missing any of: sdesc, requires, category
- sanity checking for setup.hint category - I don't want to say hardcode
a list of allowed
Christopher Faylor wrote:
As part of my effort to allow maintainers to upload their own packages
I am thinking of finally writing a package lint script which checks for
known problems in packaging.
- Empty directories.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. With cygport, empty directories are
a
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:52:58PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> I know that I'm missing some obvious stuff here. What am I missing?
>
>- setup.hint sdesc that starts with the package name
>
>- setup.hint missing any of: sdesc, requires, category
>
>- sanity checking
Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
| Is there a way I can get Cygport to generate this patch for me?
You need to put these files into foo-ver-rel/CYGWIN-PATCHES/.
I actually stumbled across that earlier, but I convinced myself it
couldn't be the right way to do it.
foo-ver-rel doesn't exist unti
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 06:28:57PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> As part of my effort to allow maintainers to upload their own packages
>> I am thinking of finally writing a package lint script which checks for
>> known problems in packaging.
>
>> - Empty directories.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'd like to get a list of things to check for.
- Missing README and setup.hint in the -src.tar.bz2. (No cygwin.patch)
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:56:07PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I'd like to get a list of things to check for.
>
> - Missing README and setup.hint in the -src.tar.bz2. (No cygwin.patch)
There's no requirement that setup.hint be in the -src.tar.bz2 or that
there there
Warren Young wrote:
Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
| Is there a way I can get Cygport to generate this patch for me?
You need to put these files into foo-ver-rel/CYGWIN-PATCHES/.
I actually stumbled across that earlier, but I convinced myself it
couldn't be the right way to do it.
Just try it
Warren Young wrote:
- Missing README
There's no real requirement for that, even if your package DOES have a
cygwin-specific README. It's not like txt documentation needs a "source"
to satisfy the GPL or something.
and setup.hint in the -src.tar.bz2. (No cygwin.patch)
And there's definit
I followed the instructions here:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2008-04/msg00299.html
when I initially installed cygwin-1.7 alongside my existing cygwin-1.5
tree. (Having learned my lesson about weird permissions, I did
'pre-create' the C:\cygwin-1.7 directory and set the inheritable
permiss
Charles Wilson wrote:
> Anyway, by the time I got to the chooser, setup-1.7 thought that I was
> doing a brand new installation. I had all the base files selected!
> That's not right.
Urgh, you're right. You'd have to temporarily switch the 1.5 mounts to
point to the 1.7 tree in order to get set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Charles Wilson wrote:
| Not an error. dlopen'ed modules -- such as m4-2.0 and perhaps
| ImageMagick/GraphicsMagick -- might be named ".dll" but will live in
| /usr/lib//
HUNDREDS of packages have dlopen'ed modules:
$ find /usr/lib -name '*.dll' -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Brian Dessent wrote:
| - setup.hint missing any of: sdesc, requires, category
Some -doc packages don't have any requires.
| - contains postinstall/preremove script without requiring bash (this
| matters for the order in which scripts are run)
Isn
Dave Korn wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote on 02 May 2008 02:45:
>
>> Warren Young wrote:
>>> Dave Korn wrote:
requires: cygwin libpng12
The requires: line looks wrong to meWhy libpng?
>>> Ask Max. :)
>> Last time I looked there was a copy of libpng embedded in the doxygen
>> source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christopher Faylor wrote:
| - Existence of /usr/man, /usr/doc rather than /usr/share/man
/usr/share/doc.
Also /usr/info.
| - Missing /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/* (probably a warning).
Most of the time when building foo/libfooX/libfoo-devel packages, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Max Bowsher wrote:
| There is a copy of the libpng source code embedded in the doxygen source
| package. By default it builds a private copy of libpng and embeds it in
| the doxygen binaries. This seemed to me like needless duplication, so I
| made
Brian Dessent wrote:
Urgh, you're right. You'd have to temporarily switch the 1.5 mounts to
point to the 1.7 tree in order to get setup-1.7 to update an existing
1.7 tree... ugly as heck.
Yeah, I discovered that when I tried to use setup-2.588 (to update my
1.5 tree) before running the mounts
"Yaakov (Cygwin Ports)" wrote:
> | - contains postinstall/preremove script without requiring bash (this
> | matters for the order in which scripts are run)
>
> Isn't that an overkill; bash is in Base, after all.
It matters for the order that the postinstall scripts are run, because
that order is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Brian Dessent on 5/2/2008 7:55 PM:
|
| Alternatively, if bash were to directly install both /bin/bash and
| /bin/sh instead of copying the latter in a postinstall then we would no
| longer have this requirement.
For the 1.7.0 release are
32 matches
Mail list logo
