Inconsistent libtool-devel and libltdl3 setup.hint files
libtool-devel's setup.hint contains no explicit version specification, but libltdl3's does, with the result that inconsistent versions of libtool-devel and libltdl3 are marked as [curr] in setup.ini. Also, libtool-devel's ldesc refers to a version number (2002) which is now out of date. Max.
RE: nfsd and mountd
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Robb, Sam wrote: All, Thanks for the testing and the feedback. New packages are available at http://www.oneparticularharbor.net/cygwin/. Changes: - Added (very) basic nfs-server-config script installed in /usr/bin. I've downloaded today the sun-rpc + nfs-server packages and tried to play a little bit with it. It works ok so far (very simple tests) but the included nfs-server-config script wont work on my system. Attached is a modified nfs-server-config script which works fine. I've made the following changes: * Use /dev/null instead of /dev/nul * Fix the order of redirection so that the output of cygrunsrv is not shown * Quote the word which indicates the end of the _here_document which is used to create /etc/exports I don't understand very well why the last change was necessary but it fixed the following problem: /usr/bin/nfs-server-config: 69: Syntax error: EOF in backquote substitution On my machine /bin/sh is ash as Cygwin installs it.
Re: ifhp package
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Brian Gallew wrote: Joshua Daniel Franklin said: --- Brian Gallew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: test: 3.5.10-1 You don't need this. Since this was a new package and can't be properly tested without installing the lpd server package (which doesn't exist yet), I thought the test bit was appropriate. I can remove it if you like, though. Then why not just wait until all the pieces are ready ?
Re: [adding docs to nasm] unfulfilled build deps for pdf
Is there some part of the package missing? If so, it isn't clear from your message. What's AFPL? Ghostscript is released (first) under a non-free but opensource license (Alladin Free Public License), and then six months to one year later under the GPL (when it is called GNU Ghostscript). Currently, the AFPL version of ghostscript is at version 8.00, while GNU ghostscript is at 7.05. We (cygwin) distribute GNU ghostscript. So I *think* what the poster was saying, was that the nasm docs require a ghostscript newer than 7.05 --- e.g. 8.0, which is currently available only as an AFPL release. --Chuck
Re: Inconsistent libtool-devel and libltdl3 setup.hint files
libtool-devel's setup.hint contains no explicit version specification, but
libltdl3's does, with the result that inconsistent versions of libtool-devel
and libltdl3 are marked as [curr] in setup.ini.
Oops. A few weeks ago, when I removed the test: designation from
libtool-devel-2002-1, I forgot to do the same thing for
libltdl3-2002-1. However, it didn't cause any problems then...
But now I uploaded libtool-devel-20021227-1, and suddenly we have
version mismatch.
Thanks for the heads-up, I've fixed it. ('Course, not before Chris
already fixed it sorta, given my 24-hour, check-email-once-a-day lag)
Also, libtool-devel's ldesc refers to a version number (2002) which is
now out of date.
Yeah, I know. Not that we USE ldesc for anything yet...For what it
matters, I've fixed this too.
--Chuck
Re: Inconsistent libtool-devel and libltdl3 setup.hint files
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:38:09AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
libtool-devel's setup.hint contains no explicit version specification, but
libltdl3's does, with the result that inconsistent versions of
libtool-devel
and libltdl3 are marked as [curr] in setup.ini.
Oops. A few weeks ago, when I removed the test: designation from
libtool-devel-2002-1, I forgot to do the same thing for
libltdl3-2002-1. However, it didn't cause any problems then...
But now I uploaded libtool-devel-20021227-1, and suddenly we have
version mismatch.
Thanks for the heads-up, I've fixed it. ('Course, not before Chris
already fixed it sorta, given my 24-hour, check-email-once-a-day lag)
I didn't really fix it, though, as you know. I just ham fisted it so
that upset would stop complaining. You actually fixed it...
cgf
Re: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status
- Original Message - From: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 18:37:20 +0100 (CET) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [nasm packaging review] was Re: Pending packages status On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote: 4. nasm version: 0.98.35-1 status : not reviewed I've reviewed the packaging of nasm and it seems to be OK. The only thing that seems to be missing is the documentation. The documentation provided by the binary package includes only the man pages for nasm and ndisasm. However, nasm has a very complete documentation with a lot of examples and available in several differen output formats (html, info, pdf). So, I think including one the .info files in the binary package along with the man pages is a good idea and will make the package complete. Done, the new binary package nasm-0.98.35-2 has everything except the pdf (due to ghostscript problems as I mentioned elsewhere). Updated files are here: http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/setup.hint http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2.tar.bz2 http://proud-x.com/~p00ya/cygwin-apps/nasm/nasm-0.98.35-2-src.tar.bz2 Cheers, Dean Scarff -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze
