RE: cygwin-doc

2002-04-10 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle

> The first thing I thought of is that if I added texinfo later, cygwin-man
> would be a bad name to have,

Are you kidding?  Cygwin-Man is the COOLEST!  Remember that one time when he
flew around the world so fast that he made time run backwards?  That was
AWESOME!  And how he can outrun a train?  And how bullets just bounce off his
chest, and how he just bends the gun as if it was rubber?  And that one time
when he fought Batman and died but then he came back in the future somehow?  And
how, when it's really hot and there's kids that are thirsty, he'll crash through
the wall and scream "OH YEAH!" and give the kids flavored sugar water to
drink... oh wait, that's Kool-Aid Man.  But still, "Cygwin-Man" would be the
BEST name to have!

Truth, Justice, and the American Way, my friend.  Truth, Justice, and the
American Way.

> Now, basically what I've got is a few scripts that take the SGML files
> in the Cygwin src (/oss/src/winsup/cygwin/*sgml for the api on my machine)
> and make some man pages. I see two real options:
> 1) Include just the scripts as src, with some instructions on telling
>my Makefile where they keep what I have as /oss/src/
> 2) Include the actual SGML files I used with a README about replacing
>them with the "latest" from CVS
>
> Do either of these sound better?

Number 2, because the idea of the source distribution is that anybody can
recreate the associated bin exactly.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.




cygwin-doc

2002-04-10 Thread Joshua Daniel Franklin

I am making real progress on creating manpages for cygwin-specific
functions and utilities. Enough to start thinking about packaging it.

The first thing I thought of is that if I added texinfo later, cygwin-man
would be a bad name to have, so I think cygwin-doc would be better.
The "binary" package is straightforward--just the man pages (duh).
But the src...

Now, basically what I've got is a few scripts that take the SGML files
in the Cygwin src (/oss/src/winsup/cygwin/*sgml for the api on my machine)
and make some man pages. I see two real options:
1) Include just the scripts as src, with some instructions on telling
   my Makefile where they keep what I have as /oss/src/
2) Include the actual SGML files I used with a README about replacing
   them with the "latest" from CVS

Do either of these sound better? And should the src package also contain
the man pages in /usr/src/cygwin-doc/ ?
Oh, and here is an api sample. I'm still working on the utils.

cygwin_conv_to_posix_path(3) cygwin_conv_to_posix_path(3)

SYNOPSIS
   extern "C" void
   cygwin_conv_to_posix_path  (const  char  *  path,  char  *
   posix_path);

DESCRIPTION
   Converts a Win32 path to a POSIX path.  If path is already
   a  POSIX path, leaves it alone. If  path is relative, then
   posix_path will also be relative.   Note  that  posix_path
   must point to a buffer of sufficient size; use MAX_PATH if
   needed.

COPYRIGHT
   Cygwin is Copyright (C)  1995,  1996,  1997,  1998,  1999,
   2000, 2001, 2002 Red Hat, Inc.

   Cygwin  is  Free software; for complete licensing informa-
   tion, refer to:

   http://cygwin.com/licensing.html

MAINTAINER
   This man page was written  and  is  maintained  by  Joshua
   Daniel Franklin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

SEE ALSO
   The  full documentation to the Cygwin API is maintained on
   the web at:

   http://cygwin.com/cygwin-api/cygwin-api.html

   The website is updated more frequently than the man  pages
   and  should  be  considered  the  authoritative  source of
   information.

2002 Apr 10  cygwin_conv_to_posix_path(3)


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/



Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)

At 08:29 PM 4/10/2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:47:31AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Setup is case insensitive to package names. I don't see any technical
> >> issue either way.
> >
> >Me neither, I only see a social issue: it's just plain irritating for
> >people?
> >
> >   tar xjf releases/mysTABTAB  ^U
> >   tar xjf releases/MyTABTAB  ^U
> >
> >etc, aargh?  It's ever more annoying when you're using wget, and try
> >to guess the name.
>
>I thought I'd replied to this but I guess I hadn't.
>
>I really don't think we should use tab completion as a justification for
>picking package names.  The package names should reflect what the
>authors want to call the package.  If the name of the package is XFree86,
>it should be called XFree86.  Ditto, TeX, or any other package.
>
>AFAICT, both Red Hat and Debian allow upper/lower case, so there's no
>reason for us to restrict things.


I went so far as to type a response and then trash it, since I thought it
was getting off-topic for this list.  But thinking again, it supports 
Chris's position, even though it has been mentioned many a time
on the Cygwin list.  I'm thinking of the 'completion-ignore-case' option
in bash.  Seems to me that this addresses the concern.  

I'm certainly all for mixed-case names.





Larry Hall  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFK Partners, Inc.  http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX




Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Christopher Faylor

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:47:31AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Setup is case insensitive to package names. I don't see any technical
>> issue either way.
>
>Me neither, I only see a social issue: it's just plain irritating for
>people?
>
>   tar xjf releases/mysTABTAB  ^U
>   tar xjf releases/MyTABTAB  ^U
>
>etc, aargh?  It's ever more annoying when you're using wget, and try
>to guess the name.

I thought I'd replied to this but I guess I hadn't.

I really don't think we should use tab completion as a justification for
picking package names.  The package names should reflect what the
authors want to call the package.  If the name of the package is XFree86,
it should be called XFree86.  Ditto, TeX, or any other package.

AFAICT, both Red Hat and Debian allow upper/lower case, so there's no
reason for us to restrict things.

cgf



Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Ian Burrell

Harold Hunt wrote:
> Yes, we try to keep things regularized around here, so XFree86 is the way
> that the package names need to be spelled.
> 
> Also, I request that you keep the XFree86-xserv package, as that will allow
> us to realize the immediate benefit of being able to release the Test-**
> server or updates to the stable server as small downloads that everyone can
> keep up to date with.
> 

Good idea. I'm going to call it xfree86-xwin though. I think I'll put 
the startup-scripts.tgz in this package.

  - Ian

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.znark.com/




Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Christopher Faylor

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 05:27:14PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Ian, Chris wants the setup hint files IN the mailing list archive 
>permanently.  Not sitting on an external, subject-to-change website.

Right.  This is part of the process for getting a package into the cygwin
package distribution.

Check out http://cygwin.com/setup.html under "Submitting a package".

cgf



Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson

Ian, Chris wants the setup hint files IN the mailing list archive 
permanently.  Not sitting on an external, subject-to-change website.

I've pasted them here.

--Chuck


--- xfree86-base ---
sdesc: "Cygwin/XFree86 base"
category: XFree86
requires: cygwin ash xfree86-fonts
ldesc: "Cygwin/XFree86 is a port of the X Window System to Cygwin. The
X server runs under Windows and displays X clients running on the
local or other machines. It can run in full screen and single window
modes.

This package contains the programs, libraries, and config files to run
the X server and other X clients. The xfree86-fonts package is also
required. The other packages contain headers, programs, and
documentation for development."


--- xfree86-devel ---
sdesc: "Cygwin/XFree86 development files"
category: XFree86
requires: xfree86-base
ldesc: "This package contains the libraries, headers, and man pages
for compiling X Windows programs."


--- xfree86-doc ---
sdesc: "Cygwin/XFree86 text documentation"
category: XFree86
ldesc: "XFree86 development documentation in text, HTML, and PostScript 
formats."

--- xfree86-fonts ---
sdesc: "Cygwin-XFree86 fonts"
category: XFree86
requires: xfree86-base
ldesc: "This package contains fonts for XFree86. It contains the
100dpi, 75dpi, misc, scaled, and cyrillic sets. This package is
required."


--- xfree86-xfs ---
sdesc: "Cygwin/XFree86 font server"
category: XFree86
requires: cygwin xfree86-base
version: 4.2.0-1
ldesc: "This package contains the font server for XFree86."


--- xfree86-xnest ---
sdesc: "Cygwin/XFree86 nested server"
category: XFree86
requires: cygwin xfree86-base
version: 4.2.0-1
ldesc: "Xnest is an X server that runs as a client for another X
server. It is used for testing X clients and servers."


--- xfree86-xprt ---
sdesc: "Cygwin/XFree86 printing server"
category: XFree86
requires: cygwin xfree86-base
version: 4.2.0-1
ldesc: "Xprt is an X server that prints the display to a PostScript file."


--- xfree86-xvfb ---
sdesc: "Cygwin-XFree86 virtual framebuffer server"
category: XFree86
requires: cygwin xfree86-base
version: 4.2.0-1
ldesc: "Xvfb is an X server that runs without any display using a
virtual framebuffer. This server runs without any display. It is used
for testing X clients and servers."









Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Ian Burrell

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> Yes, please post the setup.hint files that you used.
> 

Check out http://www.znark.com/cygwin/. It doesn't include the archive 
files; my web account doesn't have the bandwidth or quota for them. To 
generate the packages, download the *.tgz files from 
cygwin/xfree/binaries/4.2.0


> I think that these files should be called XFree86-base (or just
> XFree86), etc.  The project is the Cygwin/XFree86 project and I
> think the package names should reflect that.
> 

I renamed all the packages to use xfree86 instead of xfree.

I couldn't get upset to work properly. I figured out that it needs a 
list of packages as input. If there is no version: line in setup.hint 
files, then the generated version is incorrect (xfree-base-4.2.0-1) for 
example. If I put it in the setup.hint files, no install: line is 
generated. I had to hand edit the generated setup.ini.

  - Ian

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.znark.com/




[teilo@cdt.luth.se: Re: [bug?] binary mount point option in setup]

2002-04-10 Thread Christopher Faylor

It isn't a proper patch, but maybe this should be incorporated into setup,
if it isn't already.

It seems like a valid problem.

cgf

- Forwarded message from James Nord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -

From: James Nord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [bug?] binary mount point option in setup
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:28:34 +0200
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:

>At 04:19 PM 4/8/2002, James Nord wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I apear to have found a bug in cygwins setup program 2.125.2.10
>>
>>Description:
>>
>>When installing as administrator on XP if you select install for everyone 
>>and set the default file format to be unix then the /cygdrive mount point 
>>will be binary mode when running as the administrator user.
>>
>>mounts are stored in HLKM, however /cygdrive mounts and defaults are stored 
>>in HKCU
>>(see below.)
>>
>>So when a user (not administrator) comes to use the cygwin tools /cygdrive 
>>is mounted text not binary.
>>
>>Why does cygwin store the /cygdrive default in HKCU and not HKLM when 
>>installing as multiuser?
>>why not store the info in HKLM along with the other mount options?
>>
>
>
>Patches cheerfully accepted!
>
Hmm well...

>From what I gather the setup calls function set_cygdrive_flags in mount.cc
in my case issytem = true

however 
Line 202
 status = get_cygdrive_flags (key, &cygdrive_flags);
won't that *always* fail unless the key already exists?  We are 
installing clean so it will never exist?

Anyway, diff attached - don't know if it is correct or if it works, 
usual disclaimers apply ;-)

>>Also I couldn't find a way to change the options without running setup or 
>>regedit again.
>>full drives can be changed with the mount command but /cygdrive only?
>>
>mount -b -s -c /cygdrive
>
Ahh...

but hand on... what do the flags actually do?
the flag in HKCU is 22 (binary nounmount)? but when I ran that command 
it set the flags in HKLM to 2a

difference being?

/James

203c203
< if (status != ERROR_SUCCESS)
---
> if (status == ERROR_SUCCESS)
205,210c205,207
<   cygdrive_flags = default_cygdrive (key);
<   }
<   set_cygdrive_flags (key, istext, cygdrive_flags);
<   found_system = 1;
<   }
<   
---
> set_cygdrive_flags (key, istext, cygdrive_flags);
> found_system = 1;
>   }
212c209
<   }
---
>   }


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- End forwarded message -



Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:05:04PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> 
>>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked
>>>the entire w32api package onto sourceware:
>>>
>>>cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/*
>>>
>>>What's that all about?  Shouldn't that stuff be kept out of the mirrored
>>>anonftp area?
>>>
>>FWIW, I didn't create this.  I'll check the area.
>>
> 
> Um, are you guys reading the cygwin mailing list?  It should be obvious where
> this came from.


Sorry -- I've gotten VERY trigger-happy with the mark-as-read/delete key 
on the main cygwin list.  I just can't read every thread anymore...

I saw the "Directory structure : updates to mingw-runtime and w32api" 
subject line, but didn't read the message -- and when my mirror script 
downloaded the unpacked version of w32api it didn't occur to me that the 
two things were related.

Sorry for the noise.

 
> It was obviously a mistake on my part.  I thought I'd deleted this directory.


'Kay.

--Chuck





Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Christopher Faylor

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:24:47PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>So do you want to take care of it or should I?

Already done.

cgf



Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Earnie Boyd

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:08:09PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >> FWIW, I didn't create this.  I'll check the area.
> >
> >So who redid my packages and what was wrong with the originals?
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-04/msg00526.html
> 

Thanks,
Earnie.

_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Earnie Boyd

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:05:04PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >Charles Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked
> >> the entire w32api package onto sourceware:
> >>
> >> cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/*
> >>
> >> What's that all about?  Shouldn't that stuff be kept out of the mirrored
> >> anonftp area?
> >
> >FWIW, I didn't create this.  I'll check the area.
> 
> Um, are you guys reading the cygwin mailing list?  It should be obvious where
> this came from.
> 

Uh, no.  I get the digest and review the headers but don't actively read
the users list.

> It was obviously a mistake on my part.  I thought I'd deleted this directory.
> 

So do you want to take care of it or should I?

Earnie.

_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Christopher Faylor

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:08:09PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> FWIW, I didn't create this.  I'll check the area.
>
>So who redid my packages and what was wrong with the originals?

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-04/msg00526.html

cgf



Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Earnie Boyd

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> 
> Charles Wilson wrote:
> >
> > So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked
> > the entire w32api package onto sourceware:
> >
> > cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/*
> >
> > What's that all about?  Shouldn't that stuff be kept out of the mirrored
> > anonftp area?
> >
> 
> FWIW, I didn't create this.  I'll check the area.
> 

So who redid my packages and what was wrong with the originals?

Earnie.

_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Christopher Faylor

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:05:04PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Charles Wilson wrote:
>> 
>> So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked
>> the entire w32api package onto sourceware:
>> 
>> cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/*
>> 
>> What's that all about?  Shouldn't that stuff be kept out of the mirrored
>> anonftp area?
>
>FWIW, I didn't create this.  I'll check the area.

Um, are you guys reading the cygwin mailing list?  It should be obvious where
this came from.

It was obviously a mistake on my part.  I thought I'd deleted this directory.

cgf



Re: w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Earnie Boyd

Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
> So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked
> the entire w32api package onto sourceware:
> 
> cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/*
> 
> What's that all about?  Shouldn't that stuff be kept out of the mirrored
> anonftp area?
> 

FWIW, I didn't create this.  I'll check the area.

Earnie.

_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




w32api update?

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson

So I just updated my local mirror and discovered that somebody unpacked 
the entire w32api package onto sourceware:

cygwin/latest/w32api/hold/w32api-1.3-2/*

What's that all about?  Shouldn't that stuff be kept out of the mirrored 
anonftp area?

--Chuck




RE: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Harold Hunt

Earnie,

> Let's be real picky:
>
> XFree86-xserv-major.minor-portrelease.tar.bz2 is what is required for
> the binary release.
> XFree86-xserv-major.minor-portrelease-src.tar.bz2 is what is required
> for the source release.
>
> I've used xserv only as an example scenario and I'm not picking on it
> specifically.

That's pretty close, but XFree86 specifies three version number, so it would
actually have to be:

XFree86-xserv-major.minor.other-portrelease.tar.bz2

XFree86-xserv-major.minor.other-portrelease-src.tar.bz2

Harold

> -Original Message-
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 8:58 AM
> To: Harold Hunt
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: xfree packages
>
>
> Let's be real picky:
>
> XFree86-xserv-major.minor-portrelease.tar.bz2 is what is required for
> the binary release.
> XFree86-xserv-major.minor-portrelease-src.tar.bz2 is what is required
> for the source release.
>
> I've used xserv only as an example scenario and I'm not picking on it
> specifically.
>
> Earnie.
>
> Harold Hunt wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we try to keep things regularized around here, so XFree86
> is the way
> > that the package names need to be spelled.
> >
> > Also, I request that you keep the XFree86-xserv package, as
> that will allow
> > us to realize the immediate benefit of being able to release the Test-**
> > server or updates to the stable server as small downloads that
> everyone can
> > keep up to date with.
> >
> > Thanks for you great work,
> >
> > Harold
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:35 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: xfree packages
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:46PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
> > > >I finished making some xfree packages. They are distributed binary
> > > >archives repackaged as cygwin packages. I made a package
> directory that
> > > >can be used with setup.exe from a local directory and over
> the network.
> > > >
> > > >I changed my mind about the division of the packages I
> proposed. I got
> > > >rid of the multiple doc and fonts packages cause I was having trouble
> > > >with the naming and directories. Plus, I assumed the people
> would want
> > > >to install them together. The packages are now:
> > > >
> > > >xfree-base
> > > >xfree-devel
> > > >xfree-docs
> > > >xfree-fonts
> > > >xfree-xfs
> > > >xfree-xnest
> > > >xfree-xvfb
> > > >xfree-xprt
> > > >
> > > >I don't have a machine that people can easily download the full files
> > > >from. I can post the setup.* files and scripts I used to build
> > > the packages.
> > >
> > > Yes, please post the setup.hint files that you used.
> > >
> > > I think that these files should be called XFree86-base (or just
> > > XFree86), etc.  The project is the Cygwin/XFree86 project and I
> > > think the package names should reflect that.
> > >
> > > cgf
>
> _
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>




Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Christopher Faylor

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:17:33PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Stipe Tolj wrote:
>
>>Ok, should I CC to cygwin@ by hand now?!
>
>
>No need to panic?!
>
>For the short term, yes.  Once Chris fixes the gateway (or gets 
>cygwin-announce out of spamassisin's black hole), then you can stop.

A practical person would probably still send email to cygwin-announce, wait
to see if it shows up on cygwin in an hour or so, and if not, send the
email to cygwin@cygwin.

I won't know if I've fixed the problem until the next announcement comes in.

cgf



Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson

Stipe Tolj wrote:

> Ok, should I CC to cygwin@ by hand now?!


No need to panic?!

For the short term, yes.  Once Chris fixes the gateway (or gets 
cygwin-announce out of spamassisin's black hole), then you can stop.

For my part, I will wait a reasonable amount of time (15 mins?) after 
each of my posts appear on the cygwin-announce archive, and then if it 
hasn't been gatewayed, I'll resend to cygwin@ by hand.

--Chuck





Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Stipe Tolj

Ok, should I CC to cygwin@ by hand now?!

Stipe

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
---
wapme.net - wherever you are



Re: Now that the new setup is here...

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson

Robert Collins wrote:

> sitecopy is worth a look as a mirroring tool..


Sitecopy is intended for keeping a remote site in sync with the local 
master version (e.g. uploading your personal website to a server on 
which you have ftp access).  It's isn't great for keeping a local mirror 
of a remote master. From sitecopy's website:

"But, sitecopy does not go to the FTP server and see what's there every 
time - this is the fundamental difference between sitecopy and mirror."

This seems to be a problem, to me.  Mebbe the 'mirror' perl script is 
the real way to go, here, rather than kludged-up scripts around 
wget...but then, 'mirror' only works with ftp site, and doesn't do http 
downloads (e.g. http://mirrors.rcn.net/)

--Chuck





Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Charles Wilson



Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:07:45PM +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> 
>>Corinna,
>>
>>what about the announcement I posted to cygwin-announce@ ?
>>It hasn't yet passed to the main lists, or have I missed it?
>>Maybe you are peaking at me to take as long as I did for the package
>>submission?! :
>>
> 
> Nope, I've no influence on the mailing list software.  I've
> accepted the announcement and it's been send to the announce list.
> I don't know why it didn't make it to the cygwin list.  Perhaps
> Chris has any insight.


The cgywin-announce -> cygwin gateway has been broken since Apr 7. 
According to Chris, "cygwin-announce is getting trapped by spamassassin 
for various reasons."  He's on the case, and hopefully the problem will 
be rectified soon.  Until then, I'm going to send a duplicate copy of 
each announcement also to cygwin@ by hand.  Excuse me, gotta do that for 
bzip2/libbz2_0 now...

--Chuck




Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Earnie Boyd

Let's be real picky:

XFree86-xserv-major.minor-portrelease.tar.bz2 is what is required for
the binary release.
XFree86-xserv-major.minor-portrelease-src.tar.bz2 is what is required
for the source release.

I've used xserv only as an example scenario and I'm not picking on it
specifically.

Earnie.

Harold Hunt wrote:
> 
> Yes, we try to keep things regularized around here, so XFree86 is the way
> that the package names need to be spelled.
> 
> Also, I request that you keep the XFree86-xserv package, as that will allow
> us to realize the immediate benefit of being able to release the Test-**
> server or updates to the stable server as small downloads that everyone can
> keep up to date with.
> 
> Thanks for you great work,
> 
> Harold
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:35 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: xfree packages
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:46PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
> > >I finished making some xfree packages. They are distributed binary
> > >archives repackaged as cygwin packages. I made a package directory that
> > >can be used with setup.exe from a local directory and over the network.
> > >
> > >I changed my mind about the division of the packages I proposed. I got
> > >rid of the multiple doc and fonts packages cause I was having trouble
> > >with the naming and directories. Plus, I assumed the people would want
> > >to install them together. The packages are now:
> > >
> > >xfree-base
> > >xfree-devel
> > >xfree-docs
> > >xfree-fonts
> > >xfree-xfs
> > >xfree-xnest
> > >xfree-xvfb
> > >xfree-xprt
> > >
> > >I don't have a machine that people can easily download the full files
> > >from. I can post the setup.* files and scripts I used to build
> > the packages.
> >
> > Yes, please post the setup.hint files that you used.
> >
> > I think that these files should be called XFree86-base (or just
> > XFree86), etc.  The project is the Cygwin/XFree86 project and I
> > think the package names should reflect that.
> >
> > cgf

_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




RE: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Harold Hunt

Yes, we try to keep things regularized around here, so XFree86 is the way
that the package names need to be spelled.

Also, I request that you keep the XFree86-xserv package, as that will allow
us to realize the immediate benefit of being able to release the Test-**
server or updates to the stable server as small downloads that everyone can
keep up to date with.

Thanks for you great work,

Harold

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: xfree packages
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:40:46PM -0700, Ian Burrell wrote:
> >I finished making some xfree packages. They are distributed binary
> >archives repackaged as cygwin packages. I made a package directory that
> >can be used with setup.exe from a local directory and over the network.
> >
> >I changed my mind about the division of the packages I proposed. I got
> >rid of the multiple doc and fonts packages cause I was having trouble
> >with the naming and directories. Plus, I assumed the people would want
> >to install them together. The packages are now:
> >
> >xfree-base
> >xfree-devel
> >xfree-docs
> >xfree-fonts
> >xfree-xfs
> >xfree-xnest
> >xfree-xvfb
> >xfree-xprt
> >
> >I don't have a machine that people can easily download the full files
> >from. I can post the setup.* files and scripts I used to build
> the packages.
>
> Yes, please post the setup.hint files that you used.
>
> I think that these files should be called XFree86-base (or just
> XFree86), etc.  The project is the Cygwin/XFree86 project and I
> think the package names should reflect that.
>
> cgf




Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:07:45PM +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> Corinna,
> 
> what about the announcement I posted to cygwin-announce@ ?
> It hasn't yet passed to the main lists, or have I missed it?
> Maybe you are peaking at me to take as long as I did for the package
> submission?! :

Nope, I've no influence on the mailing list software.  I've
accepted the announcement and it's been send to the announce list.
I don't know why it didn't make it to the cygwin list.  Perhaps
Chris has any insight.

Corinna

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



Re: [ANN] updated: apache-1.3.24-1

2002-04-10 Thread Stipe Tolj

Corinna,

what about the announcement I posted to cygwin-announce@ ?
It hasn't yet passed to the main lists, or have I missed it?
Maybe you are peaking at me to take as long as I did for the package
submission?! :

Stipe

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
---
wapme.net - wherever you are



MIME format

2002-04-10 Thread Angelo Bertolli

Forgive me for posting this question, but I can't find the answer...

Is there a way to get the emails for the mailing list in just plain TEXT
format (digest) instead of this MIME format?

Angelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Professional:  http://rsf.htmlplanet.com/
Personal:  http://members.fortunecity.com/abertoll/
Help Fight Disease:  http://www.intel.com/cure



Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen

"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Setup is case insensitive to package names. I don't see any technical
> issue either way.

Me neither, I only see a social issue: it's just plain irritating for
people?

   tar xjf releases/mysTABTAB  ^U
   tar xjf releases/MyTABTAB  ^U

etc, aargh?  It's ever more annoying when you're using wget, and try
to guess the name.

Well, it's only a minor pain, and maybe it's just me.
   
Jan.
-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien   | http://www.lilypond.org




RE: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Robert Collins

Setup is case insensitive to package names. I don't see any technical
issue either way.

Rob



Re: xfree packages

2002-04-10 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen

Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I think that these files should be called XFree86-base (or just
> XFree86), etc.  The project is the Cygwin/XFree86 project and I
> think the package names should reflect that.

Oh no, please reconsider allowing capitals in package names?  You'll
set a precedent for teTeX, GUILE, MySQL etc.  I'd vote for xfree86.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien   | http://www.lilypond.org