Re: Pending packages status
Napsan da 2003.02.20 16:12, (autor: Nicholas Wourms): [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Napsan da 2003.02.20 11:32, (autor: Pavel Tsekov): 1. grace 2. nfs-server 3. LPRng 4. ifhp 5. TCM 6. par 7. pdksh There are missing my DocBook XML packages :-(. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-02/msg00148.html Not that I object, but as someone who is well aware of the frustration that sgml/xml processing systems cause on linux, shouldn't we have a complete roadmap for the potential cygwin system before we start checking in stylesheet Why this roadmap is required? I don't understand... We need working DocBook XML toolchain on cygwin (or at least I need :-). So I started packaging some software which are required to satisfy my needs. packages? I don't know of anyone who wouldn't agree that getting a working docbook system is a royal PITA. Are we going to have some sort of style-sheet management infrastructure at some point? Although I realize that xmlto xmlto is used in RH Linux too. I've no experience with jade and I'm unable to see any relation between xmlto and jade... is stand-alone from jade, I think we should plan for a fully working docbook rendering system at some point. I really don't have a good solution for this, but I feel it was at least worth noting the possible complications that may arise in the future from an improperly planned stylesheet installation. We should decide now on the type of layout that we want and what sort of management infrastructure we are going to use (RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, Debian, or our own?). You know, an ounce of prevention... My infrastructure is inspired by RH Linux. Any suggestions to improve this infrastructure are welcome. Thank you. -- +---+ | Marcel Telka e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |homepage: http://telka.sk/ | |jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +---+
Re: pdksh package proposal
Hmm, I disagree. pdksh should be used as a ksh substitute and I'd expect to run my scripts w/o having to change the shebang line to be `#!/bin/pdksh' for all my ksh scripts. However, this is just *my* opinion. I agree with you. Maybe a symlink is an option ? Sure, pdksh.exe plus a /usr/bin/ksh link would be nice (as long as people don't complain about the symlink slowing down their shell startup ;-)) Corinna Right, I have created updated packages with the fixes various people suggested, mostly from Pavel ;-) - Moved pdksh-5.2.14-1.patch to the root of the src package - Changed pdksh-5.2.14-1.README to reflect the above changes, ie. how to apply - Moved ksh.exe pdksh.exe - Added a check for /bin/ksh.exe in postinstall, symlink if non-existant - Check for existance of /bin/ksh in /etc/shells , add if not found - Copied the Cygwin readme, setup.hint and the patch to CYGWIN-PATCHES in the src dir And the new packages are available at http://twoducks.exposure.org.uk/elfyn/cygwin/pdksh/pdksh-5.2.14-1-src.tar.b z2 http://twoducks.exposure.org.uk/elfyn/cygwin/pdksh/pdksh-5.2.14-1.tar.bz2 http://twoducks.exposure.org.uk/elfyn/cygwin/pdksh/setup.hint Sorry for doing this a bit late...Needed the sleep :-) Regards, Elfyn McBratney [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.exposure.org.uk
Re: pdksh package proposal
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 07:35:47AM -, Elfyn McBratney wrote: - Check for existance of /bin/ksh in /etc/shells , add if not found Uhm... there's a problem here: /etc/shells could be non-existant. It's part of the inetutils package which is not necessarily installed. If so, your script fails. Another problem is, that all shells are mentioned with /bin *and /usr/bin path to reduce the number of confused users (we have enough of them). And: Wouldn't it make sense to add [/usr]/bin/pdksh as well? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
problem with info files
Greetings package maintainers, I notice that _update-info-dir assumes that all info files worth indexing are of the form /usr/info/*.info. Unfortunately, there are 3 packages (if I count correctly) that do not follow this rule: emacs texinfo groff Are the maintainers of those packages aware of the problem? Can these packages be fixed? Alternatively, it might be possible to re-write /etc/postinstall/update-info-dir.sh to catch these exceptional cases. Thanks for your attention. Regards, David
problem with info files
On Friday 21 Feb 03, David Starks-Browning writes: Greetings package maintainers, I notice that _update-info-dir assumes that all info files worth indexing are of the form /usr/info/*.info. Unfortunately, there are 3 packages (if I count correctly) that do not follow this rule: emacs texinfo groff Are the maintainers of those packages aware of the problem? Can these packages be fixed? Alternatively, it might be possible to re-write /etc/postinstall/update-info-dir.sh to catch these exceptional cases. Actually, the alternative is easy. At the expense of globbing everything in /usr/info, rather than just *.info (which was no problem on my PII-400 BTW), this appears to do the right thing for both variants of info pages: === --- update-info-dir.sh.orig 2002-03-31 20:14:58.0 +0100 +++ update-info-dir.sh 2003-02-21 18:12:48.0 + -1,9 +1,13 #!/bin/sh cd /usr/info -for f in *.info; do +for f in *; do case $f in *\**) ;; + *-?) + ;; + *-??) + ;; *) install-info --quiet $f dir || install-info --quiet --entry=* $$f ($f): $$f $$f dir === (It got my texinfo info working, anyway!) I don't see any documentation for the autodep setup hint, but I can guess that this is necessary too: === --- setup.hint.orig 2002-04-10 04:11:08.0 +0100 +++ setup.hint 2003-02-21 18:16:52.0 + -1,6 +1,6 sdesc: Generate info/dir file automatically category: PostInstallLast requires: texinfo ash -autodep: usr/info/.*\.info +autodep: usr/info/.* incver_ifdep: yes # verpat: (_update_info)(dir-\d+-\d+)(.*) === If you choose to use it, I hope it's trivial enough not to require an assignment. Thanks, David
Re: problem with info files
--- David Starks-Browning starksb@x wrote: Greetings package maintainers, I notice that _update-info-dir assumes that all info files worth indexing are of the form /usr/info/*.info. Unfortunately, there are 3 packages (if I count correctly) that do not follow this rule: emacs texinfo groff Add cygwin-doc to that list. I use /usr/info/*.info.gz __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
