RE: cygwin-doc
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
Setup is case insensitive to package names. I don't see any technical issue either way. Rob
Re: xfree packages
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