Re: New "fortune" package ready for uploading
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 05:04:27PM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > A new version of the "fortune" package is ready for uploading: > > http://www.mit.edu/~jik/fortune/setup.hint > http://www.mit.edu/~jik/fortune/fortune-1.8-2-src.tar.bz2 > http://www.mit.edu/~jik/fortune/fortune-1.8-2.tar.bz2 > > This is my first submission of a Cygwin package, so please let me know > if I did anything wrong. You didn't send the setup.hint content as part of your mail but otherwise it looks fine. I'm just uploading the package. Feel free to send the package announcement according to http://cygwin.com/setup.html#submitting, point 9 in a few hours. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
New "fortune" package ready for uploading
A new version of the "fortune" package is ready for uploading: http://www.mit.edu/~jik/fortune/setup.hint http://www.mit.edu/~jik/fortune/fortune-1.8-2-src.tar.bz2 http://www.mit.edu/~jik/fortune/fortune-1.8-2.tar.bz2 This is my first submission of a Cygwin package, so please let me know if I did anything wrong. jik
setup.exe lnk generation
FWIW, I've been working on a cygwin link generator that allows more options than ln (such as links to URLs, arguments, changing the icon, etc.). This would allow the removal of all the link generation stuff in desktop.cc from setup.exe. Right now the program looks like: Usage mklink.exe [OPTION]... TARGET NOTE: All filename arguments must be in unix (POSIX) format -a|--arguments=ARGS use arguments ARGS -h|--help output usage information and exit -i|--icon icon file for link to use -j|--iconoffset offset of icon in icon file (default is 0) -n|--name name for link (defaults to TARGET) -v|--version output version information and exit -A|--allusers use 'All Users' instead of current user for -D,-P -D|--desktop create link relative to 'Desktop' directory -P|--smprograms create link relative to Start Menu 'Programs' directory Everything except the last three options works great. I'm fighting with getopt about these and can't seem to find any good documentation about what the :'s or the last line of the getopt_long struct mean. But I should be able to complete it soon. __ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
Re: my "fortune" patches to make "-m" work
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:42:20 +0100 > From: Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If you want to have the original package as of before my patches, I > can send it to you. Yes please. jik
Re: my "fortune" patches to make "-m" work
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:16:22AM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > Corinna, > > Can you give me an ETA for when the patches I submitted last month to > make the "-m" flag work with "fortune" will be integrated into a new > "fortune" package? Ahem, I forgot about that patch *blush*. > Since I'm in a generous mood If you tell me where you got the > original source code from, how you changed it and how you built it, I > volunteer to take over maintenance of this package. Ok! Go ahead. Congratulations! You're the official fortunes package maintainer now! The original package is a ripped off version of the original NetBSD sources taken from a SuSE Linux version (7.3 I guess). The SuSE people just tweaked the Makefiles slightly to fit better in the Linux file system hirarchy and - that's important - since SuSE is a german company they moved all national socialistic fortunes into the offensive fortune files. I'd like to keep it that way, perhaps because I'm german. My patches just tweaked the Makefiles more to fit well into the Cygwin file system hirarchy :-) and I added the EXEEXT stuff in them. I added just four `#ifdef CYGWIN' thingies just to avoid including header files which are non-existent on Cygwin. That's all. If you want to have the original package as of before my patches, I can send it to you. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
my "fortune" patches to make "-m" work
Corinna, Can you give me an ETA for when the patches I submitted last month to make the "-m" flag work with "fortune" will be integrated into a new "fortune" package? Or, putting it another way, how long should I wait before poking you about it again :-)? I'm asking so that I'll know how far down my to-do list to put this task. Since I'm in a generous mood If you tell me where you got the original source code from, how you changed it and how you built it, I volunteer to take over maintenance of this package. Thanks, jik
Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 01:40:44AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >Heh. Well I only had 3 bits of feedback from a snapshot. Sigh. I'm waiting for the real release. At that point I'll say something like: "I tried the new release of setup.exe version 4.192 and it seems to me..." I can't figure out what will come after that but I'm sure it will be cogent. cgf
Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?
=== - Original Message - From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Can we concentrate on releasing a new version of setup.exe, please? Sure. Just add another few days to my days, and I can do that. > I'd like to eliminate the confusion that the current version of setup.exe > is causing. It seems like we are in a standard "add one more thing" mode > when people are experiencing real problems and real confusion with the > currently released setup.exe. Nope. It's feature frozen. I announced that about 2 days ago. The *only* reason I'm doing the major char *->String overhaul is to ensure there are no more hidden heap corruptions occuring. The char[] seems to have the potential to confuse gcc. > The only thing that I really wanted for the next release was clickable > categories. We have quite a bit more than that so I assume there will > be additional unforeseen headaches coming. This is standard when you > add new features. The more features you add, the more headaches you'll > get. Of course. I only got clickable categories done last week or so though :}. > So, lets just concentrate on getting something out the door which solves > the known issues. The biggest known issue right now is the "How do I > install everything?" When it's ready, it'll ship. Don't worry. Rob
Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?
=== - Original Message - From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think most of these changes are in Robert's sandbox right > now They are. Rob
Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?
=== - Original Message - From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Btw, I hope this isn't taken as a criticism of the current state of > setup.exe. There are obviously a lot of wonderful improvements in it. Glad to hear you think so :}. > I'm just getting the same uneasy feeling that I get when I've gone too > long without a cygwin release. I *know* that there is some major issue > that will cause a 20% increase in mailing list traffic just lurking in > the code somewhere. Heh. Well I only had 3 bits of feedback from a snapshot. Sigh. Rob
Re: moratorium on new setup.exe features, please?
=== - Original Message - From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've checked in a fix for this but I expect that it won't be necessary > when setup.exe is released. I'll probably be linking some kind of library > from cinstall or something. The libraries not quite ready, but is getting there. Still sandbox only. Rob
Re: setup.exe looks good!
=== - Original Message - From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:40 PM Subject: setup.exe looks good! > I just built the latest setup.exe. It looks really nice. And, I see that > clickable categories are working! :]. It happens, bit by bit. > Can I suggest one more GUI feature that I think has been lacking from > Categories? (I know I said no new features but I think this is > important) I have a huge checkin that is going in sooon, and will be the last before I tag it in CVS. Bugfixes only from that point on. > I keep meaning to suggest that we add a '+' or a '>' to the left of all > of the Categories so that it is obvious that they can be expanded. I > think that people are used to interpreting the icon next to something as > indicating that there are more things possible to list. Done. > Hopefully, that won't translate into it being completely incomprehensible > for everyone on the cygwin@cygwin list. Heh. Don't mention the war :}. Rob
Re: gnuplot problem under Xfree86
Wrong list!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I just compiled gnuplot-3.7 from source files for > cygwin under Xfree86. Every thing was running fine > for a postscript terminal, but it fails for a > X11 terminal, for instance plotted lines fall outside > the graph viewport and the screen appear filled of > a red surface. Anybody knows what is going on? > > Joaquin _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
gnuplot problem under Xfree86
I just compiled gnuplot-3.7 from source files for cygwin under Xfree86. Every thing was running fine for a postscript terminal, but it fails for a X11 terminal, for instance plotted lines fall outside the graph viewport and the screen appear filled of a red surface. Anybody knows what is going on? Joaquin
Re: setup crashing - fixed?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 06:59:49AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote: > "Gary R. Van Sickle" wrote: > > > > BTW, who's the Cygwin bazzoo maintainer? > > > > Don't you remember? You said that you would maintain it. > > Earnie. If not... hmm... I heard rumors that perhaps... L. Gerstner is looking for a new hobby in 2003, you know... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: setup crashing - fixed?
"Gary R. Van Sickle" wrote: > > BTW, who's the Cygwin bazzoo maintainer? > Don't you remember? You said that you would maintain it. Earnie. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: setup.exe looks good!
=== - Original Message - From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I just built the latest setup.exe. It looks really nice. And, I see that > > clickable categories are working! > > Are they ever! And did you catch the "replace files in use" feature? Yeah it > makes you reboot, but still, pretty sweet. *Bow*. I still ain't heard boo from any win9x users. Anyone that can lay hand on a 9x machine and test this *before* we release the updated version, would be doing me a favour. > I keep meaning to suggest the same thing, and maybe even lines like you get on > most such expanding list control thingies. But I think Rob is rolling his own > here instead of using the ListView common control (which isn't available on a > stock 95 machine AFAIK), so lines might be asking a bit much. But I'd think > that at a minimum, simply adding a toggling +/- to the front of each category > string wouldn't be too traumatic. Rob? Listviews aren't hierarchical. Treeviews suck. So C++ to the rescue. I may wrap the end result in window messages at some point, but not being a win32 windowing API wizzzard thats a low priority. As for requirements, 95 +IE 4 is the minimum, and that wouldn't be a showstopper IMO (but the functionality is :}) > > Hopefully, that won't translate into it being completely incomprehensible > > for everyone on the cygwin@cygwin list. > > Well, we are working hard on the mindreading mode Shh! Be veri veri quite. I'm hunting rabbit. Rob
Re: setup.exe looks good!
=== - Original Message - From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:50 PM Subject: RE: setup.exe looks good! > > > Also, I thought that the Category page was supposed to automatically > > > expand the Categories that were installing things so that it was obvious > > > what was about to be downloaded. Didn't it do that at one point. > > > > > > > Yeah, it did, and I thought it still did the last time I checked (like a few > > days ago). I'm resynching to CVS now, I'll rebuild it and see. I need that > > rxvt update, and of course the sweet new bazzoo release. > > > > I can confirm this isn't working anymore. What it did before was a side effect of the quick-hack categories I put in place. Now that the display,tree and data are all somewhat separated, there is no 'addition' taking place when dependent packages where selected. So actual code to do it needs to be written... which I'll leave as an excercise for the reader. Rob
