RE: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Morrison, John]

> From: Max Bowsher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 07:05, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >> I propose removing autotool-generated files from setup CVS.
> >
> > I am ok with this. I'm not going to participate in a flamefest like
> > that occuring when I introduced libgetopt++ w/o generated files.
> >
> > So... if no-one speaks up against this in the next week, 
> we'll remove
> > the auto-tool generated files.
> >
> >> There is already a bootstrap.sh script in the setup directory.
> >> Should I make it recurse into libgetopt++ automatically?
> >
> > No thanks. There's no need to regenerate libgetopt++ after 
> changing a
> > setup.exe auto* file, and vice verca.
> 
> How about:
> 
> if [ ! -f libgetopt++/configure ]; then
> cd libgetopt++
> ./bootstrap.sh
> fi
> 
> Also, how about:
> 
> if [ ! -f cygpackage.cc ]; then
> echo "You must run this script from the directory containing it"
> exit 1
> fi
> 
> And similarly for libgetopt++/bootstrap.sh :
> 
> if [ ! -f src/GetOption.cc ]; then
> echo "You must run this script from the directory containing it"
> exit 1
> fi
> 
> At the moment, the error messages are less than clear, if you 
> make this
> mistake.

Yes please!  Anything to make building setup easier!  I also agree,
auto generated files should be a no-no under source control. :)

J.


\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may
not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed
to any third party without our permission.  There is no intention to
create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use
of this email.
Experian Limited (registration number 653331).
Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG1 5HF

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:

> Hi Danilo & *,
> 
> I've got a new release of TCM/Cygwin (source and binary) that can be 
> found here:
> 
> http://www.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm_cygwin.html
> 
> Due to some changes I made, I inremented the patch-level (to 2). Pavel, 
> would you please adjust the links in your next "Pending ..." mail?

No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
package is out. Please, rename the package files.

Re: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Marcel Telka]

Napísané dňa 2003.03.05 22:36, (autor: Max Bowsher):
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 07:10:50AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 07:05, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >>> I propose removing autotool-generated files from setup CVS.
> >> 
> >> I am ok with this. I'm not going to participate in a flamefest like
> >> that occuring when I introduced libgetopt++ w/o generated files.
> > 
> > I don't have any objections as long as there is an easy way to
> > regenerate the files.
> 
> There is already a bootstrap.sh script which does this.
> 
> Robert: Does the order of invocation of automake and autoconf matter?

$0.02:
What about one `autoreconf` call instead of twiddling with
autoconf/automake/autoheader/auto... call order?


Regards.

-- 
+---+
| Marcel Telka   e-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
|homepage: http://telka.sk/ |
|jabber:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+---+

Re: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 20:52, Marcel Telka wrote:


> $0.02:
> What about one `autoreconf` call instead of twiddling with
> autoconf/automake/autoheader/auto... call order?

Blurk.

If you're comfortable with autoreconf, just run it directly.

Bootstrap exists to do the right thing for us.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Pending packages status

[Daniel Bößwetter]

Pavel Tsekov wrote:

No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
package is out. Please, rename the package files.
 

As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
packages remain as follows:

5. TCM

date   : 27 Jan 2003
version: 2.20-1
status : reviewed; there are some problems with the binary package
notes  : http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00299.html
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00100.html
reviews: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00046.html
votes  : 2 (Christopher and Lapo)
url: http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1.tar.bz2
http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/tcm-2.20-1-src.tar.bz2
http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/setup.hint
Bye,
Daniel

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:

> Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> 
> >No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
> >package is out. Please, rename the package files.
> >  
> >
> As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
> packages remain as follows:

:) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.

Re: Pending packages status

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
> 
> > Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > 
> > >No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
> > >package is out. Please, rename the package files.
> > >  
> > >
> > As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
> > packages remain as follows:
> 
> :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.

Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
preference :}.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Max Bowsher]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 20:52, Marcel Telka wrote:
>
>
>> $0.02:
>> What about one `autoreconf` call instead of twiddling with
>> autoconf/automake/autoheader/auto... call order?
>
> Blurk.
>
> If you're comfortable with autoreconf, just run it directly.
>
> Bootstrap exists to do the right thing for us.

What do you think of my proposed additions to bootstrap.sh?

Also, I'd like to request approval to add "foreign" to AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS in
Makefile.am. It's given in bootstrap.sh, but autoreconf doesn't know that.

I'm don't think this change is big enough to bother with a patch.


Max.

Re: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Max Bowsher]

Marcel Telka wrote:
> Napísané dňa 2003.03.05 22:36, (autor: Max Bowsher):
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 07:10:50AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
 On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 07:05, Max Bowsher wrote:
> I propose removing autotool-generated files from setup CVS.

 I am ok with this. I'm not going to participate in a flamefest like
 that occuring when I introduced libgetopt++ w/o generated files.
>>>
>>> I don't have any objections as long as there is an easy way to
>>> regenerate the files.
>>
>> There is already a bootstrap.sh script which does this.
>>
>> Robert: Does the order of invocation of automake and autoconf matter?
>
> $0.02:
> What about one `autoreconf` call instead of twiddling with
> autoconf/automake/autoheader/auto... call order?

I don't know. I'm new to the autotools. I've heard it said that autoreconf
used to be unreliable. It seems ok to me, except for one *big* flaw: There
is no way to tell it not to recurse, and we do *not* want to autoreconf all
the subdirectories.


Max.

Re: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Max Bowsher]

Max Bowsher wrote:
> Robert: Does the order of invocation of automake and autoconf matter?
>
> It's one way round in libgetopt++ and the other way round in setup.

I've been looking at autoreconf. If it is right, and *if* order *does*
matter, then libgetopt++/bootstrap.sh is wrong.

autoreconf in libgetopt++:
~~
aclocal
libtoolize
aclocal (*)
autoconf
autoheader
automake

(*) seems like overkill. Anyway, is currently unneccessary for setup &
libgetopt++.

bootstrap.sh in libgetopt++:

aclocal
autoheader
libtoolize
automake
autoconf


Max.

gcc Core Dump

[Klaus . Moschner]

Hi,

I'm a newbie in programming under Cygwin, and I have a very basic problem
with gcc:
Any help is appreciated.
This code compiles and runs without any problems under Dev++

This is the output when I compile and run:
$ gcc -Wall prog3.c -o prog3

$ ./prog3.exe
Hello World
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

$

This is the source code:

/* Include Files */
#include 
#include 

/* Function Declarations */
void PrintHW();

int main()
{
char quit;  
printf("Hello World\n");
PrintHW();/* Prints Hello Function */
printf("Hello World\n");
quit = '\0';

return 0;
}


void PrintHW()
{
printf("Hello Function\n");
}

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!

Re: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Marcel Telka]

Napísané dňa 2003.03.06 13:08, (autor: Max Bowsher):
> Marcel Telka wrote:
> > Napísané dňa 2003.03.05 22:36, (autor: Max Bowsher):
> >> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 07:10:50AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>  On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 07:05, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > I propose removing autotool-generated files from setup CVS.
> 
>  I am ok with this. I'm not going to participate in a flamefest
> like
>  that occuring when I introduced libgetopt++ w/o generated files.
> >>>
> >>> I don't have any objections as long as there is an easy way to
> >>> regenerate the files.
> >>
> >> There is already a bootstrap.sh script which does this.
> >>
> >> Robert: Does the order of invocation of automake and autoconf
> matter?
> >
> > $0.02:
> > What about one `autoreconf` call instead of twiddling with
> > autoconf/automake/autoheader/auto... call order?
> 
> I don't know. I'm new to the autotools. I've heard it said that
> autoreconf
> used to be unreliable. It seems ok to me, except for one *big* flaw:
> There
> is no way to tell it not to recurse, and we do *not* want to
> autoreconf all
> the subdirectories.

Yes. It recurses to AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS directories automatically. If you
do not want to descend to libgetopt++, then autoreconf is unusable for
you. IMHO this is not a good idea (no flame please). I'm not watching
whole thread about libgetopt++ bootstrapping... If the decision is no,
then no :-).

Have a nice day.

-- 
+---+
| Marcel Telka   e-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
|homepage: http://telka.sk/ |
|jabber:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+---+

Re: gcc Core Dump

[Max Bowsher]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a newbie in programming under Cygwin, and I have a very basic
> problem with gcc:
> Any help is appreciated.

Wrong mailing list. Please re-read http://cygwin.com/lists.html.

Your sample code below works for me.

Do NOT reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Start a new thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Max.


> This code compiles and runs without any problems under Dev++
> 
> This is the output when I compile and run:
> $ gcc -Wall prog3.c -o prog3
> 
> $ ./prog3.exe
> Hello World
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
> 
> $
> 
> This is the source code:
> 
> /* Include Files */
> #include 
> #include 
> 
> /* Function Declarations */
> void PrintHW();
> 
> int main()
> {
> char quit;
> printf("Hello World\n");
> PrintHW();/* Prints Hello Function */
> printf("Hello World\n");
> quit = '\0';
> 
> return 0;
> }
> 
> 
> void PrintHW()
> {
> printf("Hello Function\n");
> }

Re: Proposal: Remove autotool-generated files from setup CVS

[Max Bowsher]

Marcel Telka wrote:
> Yes. It recurses to AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS directories automatically. If
> you do not want to descend to libgetopt++, then autoreconf is
> unusable for you. IMHO this is not a good idea (no flame please). I'm
> not watching whole thread about libgetopt++ bootstrapping... If the
> decision is no, then no :-).

It's less libgetopt++ that I'm thinking of. It's more zlib, bz2lib and
librsync. All of which are just imported libraries, which we just want to
use as-is.


Max.

Re: Pending packages status

[Pavel Tsekov]

On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
> > 
> > > Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> > > 
> > > >No. You should not touch this number until the first release of your 
> > > >package is out. Please, rename the package files.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the 
> > > packages remain as follows:
> > 
> > :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
> 
> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
> preference :}.

Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply. Anyway, 
here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I do is really 
unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable or something 
like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1.

Re: Pending packages status

[Max Bowsher]

Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel Bößwetter wrote:
>>>
 Pavel Tsekov wrote:

> No. You should not touch this number until the first release of
> your package is out. Please, rename the package files.
>
>
 As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the
 packages remain as follows:
>>>
>>> :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
>>
>> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
>> preference :}.
>
> Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply.
> Anyway, here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I
> do is really unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable
> or something
> like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1.

Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version.

On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current
practice.

Max.

tetex-2.0.2-1

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

This is a bugfix release.  It includes upstream bugfixes, packaging fixes
and textmode mount fixes for xdvi+t1lib.

Please upload.

As the curr/prev entries suggest, please remove last week's tetex-*2.0.1-1*
packages.

I hope that I got everything right again, this time.

Greetings,
Jan.


http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (install helper)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Text Publishing
# There's no need to require a texmf tree, although not doing so
# might be confusing.
requires: tetex-bin tetex-tiny
#suggests: tetex-base tetex-extra
ldesc: "teTeX text formatting system.
This is teTeX, a TeX distribution for UNIX compatible systems.  This
virtual tetex package will install tetex-bin and tetex-tiny, the
minimal working teTeX setup.  It is advised to install tetex-base too.
If you have plenty of bandwith, find the rest of teTeX in tetex-extra
and tetex-doc."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-2.0.2-1-src.tar.bz2
http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-2.0.2-1.tar.bz2

===

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-base/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (basic libraries)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Text Publishing
requires: tetex-bin
#suggests: tetex-extra tetex-doc
external-source: tetex
ldesc: "Basic library files for the Cygwin teTeX distribution.  Together with
tetex-bin you have a useful TeX installation.  With tetex-extra, you have a
complete installation."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-base/tetex-base-2.0.2-1.tar.bz2

===

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-bin/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (binaries)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Text Publishing
# There's no need to require a texmf tree, although not doing so
# might be confusing.
requires: ash clear cygutils cygwin ed diffutils fileutils findutils gawk grep jpeg 
libkpathsea3 libncurses6 libpng12 perl sed sh-utils textutils termcap tiff zlib
#external-source: tetex-bin
#suggests: tetex-tiny | tetex-base, tetex-extra, tetex-x11
ldesc: "teTeX binary files
This is teTeX, a TeX distribution for UNIX compatible systems.  These
are all the binaries for the teTeX system.  You need at least
tetex-tiny or tetex-base together with it."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-bin/tetex-bin-2.0.2-1-src.tar.bz2
http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-bin/tetex-bin-2.0.2-1.tar.bz2

===

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-devel/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (headers and static libraries)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Devel Libs
requires: cygwin libkpathsea3
external-source: tetex-bin
ldesc: "The TeX text formatting system (headers and static libraries)
The teTeX development headers and kpathsea static library."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-devel/tetex-devel-2.0.2-1.tar.bz2

===

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-doc/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (documentation)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Doc
requires: cygwin
external-source: tetex
ldesc: "The TeX text formatting system (documentation).
Documentation for the Cygwin teTeX distribution."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-doc/tetex-doc-2.0.2-1.tar.bz2

===

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-extra/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (extra libraries)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Text Publishing
requires: tetex-bin tetex-base
external-source: tetex
ldesc: "Extra library files for the Cygwin teTeX distribution.  Together with
tetex-bin and tetex-base you have a complete TeX installation."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-extra/tetex-extra-2.0.2-1.tar.bz2

===

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-tiny/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (tiny libraries subset)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Text Publishing
requires: tetex-bin
external-source: tetex
ldesc: "Very small subset of library files for the Cygwin teTeX distribution.
Together with tetex-bin you have a minimal TeX installation.  For a
reasonable TeX installation, tetex-base is recommended."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-tiny/tetex-tiny-2.0.2-1.tar.bz2

===

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-x11/setup.hint

sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system (X11 binaries)."
curr: 2.0.2-1
prev: 20020911-1
category: Text Publishing
# There's no need to require a texmf tree, although not doing so
# might be confusing.
# Also, xdvi and mfw require XFree86, obviously, but we don't want
# to force a dependency like Debian does.
requires: cygwin tetex-bin tetex-tiny XFree86-base ghostscript-x11
external-source: tetex-bin
ldesc: "teTeX X11 binary files
This is teTeX, a TeX distribution for UNIX compatible systems.  These
are all the X11 binaries for the teTeX system.  You need to install
XFree86 and at least tetex-tiny or tetex-base together with it."

http://lilypond.org/cygwin/tar/tetex/tetex-x11/

Re: tetex-2.0.2-1

[Pavel Tsekov]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

> 
> This is a bugfix release.  It includes upstream bugfixes, packaging fixes
> and textmode mount fixes for xdvi+t1lib.
> 
> Please upload.
> 
> As the curr/prev entries suggest, please remove last week's tetex-*2.0.1-1*
> packages.
> 
> I hope that I got everything right again, this time.

Done. Please, double check that I did right.

Re: Pending packages status

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:53:53PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
 On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel B??wetter wrote:

> Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>
>> No. You should not touch this number until the first release of
>> your package is out. Please, rename the package files.
>>
>>
> As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the
> packages remain as follows:

 :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
>>>
>>> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
>>> preference :}.
>>
>> Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply.
>> Anyway, here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I
>> do is really unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable
>> or something
>> like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1.
>
>Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
>think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version.
>
>On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current
>practice.

I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would
be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given
some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible.  I like
being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject
if this is a recent release or not.

Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think
we should continue to work that way.

cgf

Re: tetex-2.0.2-1

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Pavel Tsekov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> I hope that I got everything right again, this time.
>
> Done. Please, double check that I did right.

Yes, it looks fine, thanks.  I'll send an announcement.

Greetings,
Jan.

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