Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
- Original Message - From: Joshua Daniel Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 11:02:09 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status > ... > An alternative would be to have a separate nasm-doc package with all the > documentation, which would keep the smaller binary download for people that > do not need the docs. > I agree that both the man and info docs should be available in the binary distribution. As for the additional (pdf, ps, html) documentation, I'm open to suggestion. The extra docs are certainly very comprehensive, although I don't often consult them. I also notice that the nasm project provides a separate nasm-0.98.35-xdoc package. In any case, I'll repackage the existing package to make everything and make install_everything, I'll post an update soon. Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: LPRng
I would like to provide an LPRng package. This brings up a couple of points. 1) What should be done about the lpr.exe provided by cygutils? I'm willing to rename "my" lpr (it's actually Rick Rankin's) to something like "lpr-simple", but I don't think it should be removed entirely. Rick's code is a very simple spooler that explicitly uses Windows calls to access the printer device; I think we should keep it around for those that don't want the bulk of lprng with its filters and inbuilt rasterizers etc. Anyway, keep me in the loop on this, and when it comes time to upload/release lprng -- assuming it passes review on this list -- let's coordinate and make sure that lprng and the updated cygutils get uploaded in the right order, or simultaneously. 2) Should I make LPRng dependent upon ifhp? don't know enough about lprng to answer this one. 3) LPRng really wants to have its own userid to run under. Should I create one automatically (assuming that's even doable)? There is really a whole raft of sticky problems under here, especially since the userid is compiled in. Urk. That's messy -- and won't even work on W9x. I think you've got quite a bit of testing and QA to do with this package, to ensure "expected" behavior as (client|server) X (NT/2k/XP | W9x). See the earlier discussion w.r.t. xinetd and how to "install" without "turning on", and providing a script the user can run to "turn on" the server. 4) Should I build in SSL support? You can't really provide it as an add-on. Probably. Actually, 2-4 only matter if people want to use LPRng as a server. Truthfully, I'm not even sure that ifhp can handle the parallel port under cygwin. I like the separate packages idea. --Chuck
[adding docs to nasm] unfulfilled build deps for pdf
As per your suggestion to add the extra docs to the nasm package, I have found that nasm requires AFPL ghostscript to build the pdf. This package is not currently part of cygwin (although there is an old contrib that never made it here: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00185.html ). So my question is, is there a policy regarding relying on non-(official)cygwin packages for builds? I can easily just add the pdf built on linux to the binary package, but this would mean that the source package will be incapable (under cygwin) of producing the binary. The other option as Joshua suggested is to provide a separate docs package (which doesnt need a corresponding source). Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
Re: [adding docs to nasm] unfulfilled build deps for pdf
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:49:31AM +0800, Dean Scarff wrote: >As per your suggestion to add the extra docs to the nasm package, I >have found that nasm requires AFPL ghostscript to build the pdf. This >package is not currently part of cygwin (although there is an old >contrib that never made it here: >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-10/msg00185.html ). Huh? You're quoting a message from the ghostscript package maintainer. This package was dutifully uploaded to sources.redhat.com by our ever vigilant Pavel Tsekov. Is there some part of the package missing? If so, it isn't clear from your message. What's AFPL? cgf
