RE: Request to publish subversion packages after self-review
Max Bowsher wrote: > No one has reviewed my subversion source package, so I > started tried to do it myself, by trying to build in a new clean > minimal cygwin install. > > I found and fixed number of problems - mostly missing build > requirements - and a final build in the clean environment completed > OK. > > Therefore, I'd like to request that this package be > considered self-reviewed, and so ready to publish. > > Max. OK, I just built the source package. It hung the first time, no indications as to why :( Sucessfully built the second time. J. This e-mail has come from Experian International: winner of the UK's National Business of the Year Award 2003. == Information in this e-mail 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 binding commitment through the use of this electronic communication unless it is issued in accordance with the Experian Limited standard terms and conditions of purchase or other express written agreement between Experian Limited and the recipient Experian Limited (registration number 653331) Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG80 1TH Although Experian has taken reasonable steps to ensure that this communication and any attachments are free from computer virus, you are advised to take your own steps to ensure that they are actually virus free.
Re: Request to publish subversion packages after self-review
Morrison, John wrote: > Max Bowsher wrote: >> No one has reviewed my subversion source package, so I >> started tried to do it myself, by trying to build in a new clean >> minimal cygwin install. >> >> I found and fixed number of problems - mostly missing build >> requirements - and a final build in the clean environment completed >> OK. >> >> Therefore, I'd like to request that this package be >> considered self-reviewed, and so ready to publish. >> >> Max. > > OK, I just built the source package. It hung the first time, no > indications as to why :( > > Sucessfully built the second time. I can't explain or reproduce the hang, myself. BTW, there are updated packages at http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/ Those are updated to the latest upstream release, and include a more complete list of build requirements. Max.
RE: Request to publish subversion packages after self-review
Max Bowsher wrote: > Morrison, John wrote: >> Max Bowsher wrote: >>> No one has reviewed my subversion source package, so I >>> started tried to do it myself, by trying to build in a new clean >>> minimal cygwin install. >>> >>> I found and fixed number of problems - mostly missing build >>> requirements - and a final build in the clean environment completed >>> OK. >>> >>> Therefore, I'd like to request that this package be >>> considered self-reviewed, and so ready to publish. >>> >>> Max. >> >> OK, I just built the source package. It hung the first time, no >> indications as to why :( >> >> Sucessfully built the second time. > > I can't explain or reproduce the hang, myself. > > BTW, there are updated packages at > http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/ > > Those are updated to the latest upstream release, and include > a more complete list of build requirements. > > Max. Yeah, it was that one I pulled :) J. This e-mail has come from Experian International: winner of the UK's National Business of the Year Award 2003. == Information in this e-mail 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 binding commitment through the use of this electronic communication unless it is issued in accordance with the Experian Limited standard terms and conditions of purchase or other express written agreement between Experian Limited and the recipient Experian Limited (registration number 653331) Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG80 1TH Although Experian has taken reasonable steps to ensure that this communication and any attachments are free from computer virus, you are advised to take your own steps to ensure that they are actually virus free.
Missing dependency: libtool-devel requires file
libtool-devel should require file, since without file, win32_libid always returns unknown, breaking any attempt to use DLLs. Max.
Re: Request to publish subversion packages after self-review
hallo, Max, In my case it fails on "prep" step with the message: Python check failed, make sure python is installed and on the PATH (but you hadn't python listed in the "required" section on setup.hint) Apart from that, for a client-only build it went OK --- Ricardo Varela http://phobeo.com > Morrison, John wrote: >> Max Bowsher wrote: >>> No one has reviewed my subversion source package, so I >>> started tried to do it myself, by trying to build in a new clean >>> minimal cygwin install. >>> >>> I found and fixed number of problems - mostly missing build >>> requirements - and a final build in the clean environment completed >>> OK. >>> >>> Therefore, I'd like to request that this package be >>> considered self-reviewed, and so ready to publish. >>> >>> Max. >> >> OK, I just built the source package. It hung the first time, no >> indications as to why :( >> >> Sucessfully built the second time. > > I can't explain or reproduce the hang, myself. > > BTW, there are updated packages at > http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/ > > Those are updated to the latest upstream release, and include a more > complete list of build requirements. > > Max.
Re: [ITP] pango-1.4.0
Hi Yaakov, > Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >> I want to contribute/maintain Pango. >> Canonical website: http://www.pango.org/ >> >> This is number three of four of the base/core GNOME libraries. > +1 from me. But how long before glib2 is ready to go? I have changed the script to use //disable/gtk/doc now, the tarballs were alreeady uploaded, a review and they could be uploaded. Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: Request to publish subversion packages after self-review
Ricardo Varela [phobeo] wrote: > hallo, Max, > > In my case it fails on "prep" step with the message: > Python check failed, make sure python is installed and on the PATH > (but you hadn't python listed in the "required" section on setup.hint) The requires: lines in setup.hint list *run-time* dependencies. Python is a *build-time* dependency. Therefore it is not listed in a requires: line. (But is listed in the package's Cygwin README file. Max.
base-files request
John, Would it be possible to add the base-files package version to the header comment of all the scripts in base-files? It would then be apparent which version of the base-files package each script came from. Another thing that was talked about was checking whether /etc/profile was edited and updating it if it wasn't (same probably goes for other /etc/defaults scripts). One way to do this is to compare /etc/profile with /etc/defaults/etc/profile in the preremove script, and if it's the same, remove /etc/profile, i.e., if /bin/cmp -s /etc/defaults/etc/profile /etc/profile; then echo "/etc/profile was modified, leaving as-is" elif [ $? -eq 127 ]; then echo "diffutils must have been uninstalled, sorry" else /bin/rm /etc/profile fi The contortions above are needed to correctly handle the case when "diffutils" is being upgraded as well. Of course, upgrading "fileutils" will cause "rm" to fail, and no postinstall script will work if either "cygwin" or "bash" is upgraded, but at least the above won't remove /etc/profile if /bin/cmp is missing (as the first obvious choice, if ! /bin/cmp -s /etc/defaults/etc/profile /etc/profile; then /bin/rm /etc/profile fi would have). BTW, a question to setup developers: did we ever figure out how to get preremove scripts to run reliably? Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
db4.2 packaging suggestion
The html docs for the db4.2 command line utilities are in the libdb4.2-devel package and installed into /usr/share/doc/libdb4.2-devel-4.2.52. This causes the link to them from the main db documentation to be broken. I suggest that either all the docs be installed in /usr/share/db-4.2.52, regardless of which sub-package they are in, or, the link in /usr/share/doc/db-4.2.52/index.html be edited from utility/index.html to ../libdb4.2-devel-4.2.52/utility/index.html . Max.
Re: Request to publish subversion packages after self-review
hallo, Aaps! My apologies for the misunderstanding }:) --- Ricardo Varela http://phobeo.com > The requires: lines in setup.hint list *run-time* dependencies. > Python is a *build-time* dependency. Therefore it is not listed in a > requires: line. (But is listed in the package's Cygwin README file. > > Max.
RE: base-files request
> From: Igor Pechtchanski
>
> John,
>
> Would it be possible to add the base-files package version to the header
> comment of all the scripts in base-files? It would then be apparent which
> version of the base-files package each script came from.
Good idea :)
> Another thing that was talked about was checking whether /etc/profile was
> edited and updating it if it wasn't (same probably goes for other
> /etc/defaults scripts). One way to do this is to compare /etc/profile
> with /etc/defaults/etc/profile in the preremove script, and if it's the
> same, remove /etc/profile, i.e.,
Yes, I've been playing with this idea...
> if /bin/cmp -s /etc/defaults/etc/profile /etc/profile; then
> echo "/etc/profile was modified, leaving as-is"
> elif [ $? -eq 127 ]; then
> echo "diffutils must have been uninstalled, sorry"
> else
> /bin/rm /etc/profile
> fi
>
> The contortions above are needed to correctly handle the case when
> "diffutils" is being upgraded as well. Of course, upgrading "fileutils"
> will cause "rm" to fail, and no postinstall script will work if either
> "cygwin" or "bash" is upgraded, but at least the above won't remove
> /etc/profile if /bin/cmp is missing (as the first obvious choice,
>
> if ! /bin/cmp -s /etc/defaults/etc/profile /etc/profile; then
> /bin/rm /etc/profile
> fi
>
> would have).
#!/bin/sh
[ -f /etc/preremove/base-files-manifest.lst ] || exit 0
echo "*** Removing unmodified base files."
echo "*** These will be updated by the postinstall script."
echo "*** Please wait."
while read f; do
/bin/cmp -s "${f}" "/etc/defaults${f}"
if [ "`echo $?`" -eq "0" ]; then
echo ${f} hasn't been modified, it will be updated
/bin/rm -f "${f}"
fi
done < base-files-manifest.lst
but I'll add the test for diffutils :)
This way the skel files will be upgraded in the same manner.
I have been wondering how best to release this, there have been
several patches to profile, but if I release a new package with the
new version of profile then the preremove script will never
upgrade... but how long do I (we? ;) give people to upgrade?
J.
RE: base-files request
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, John Morrison wrote:
> > From: Igor Pechtchanski
>
> > Another thing that was talked about was checking whether /etc/profile was
> > edited and updating it if it wasn't (same probably goes for other
> > /etc/defaults scripts). One way to do this is to compare /etc/profile
> > with /etc/defaults/etc/profile in the preremove script, and if it's the
> > same, remove /etc/profile, i.e.,
>
> Yes, I've been playing with this idea...
>
> > if /bin/cmp -s /etc/defaults/etc/profile /etc/profile; then
> > echo "/etc/profile was modified, leaving as-is"
Whoops. cmp returns true if the files are the same... I'm properly
embarrassed.
> > elif [ $? -eq 127 ]; then
> > echo "diffutils must have been uninstalled, sorry"
> > else
> > /bin/rm /etc/profile
> > fi
> >
> > The contortions above are needed to correctly handle the case when
> > "diffutils" is being upgraded as well. Of course, upgrading "fileutils"
> > will cause "rm" to fail, and no postinstall script will work if either
> > "cygwin" or "bash" is upgraded, but at least the above won't remove
> > /etc/profile if /bin/cmp is missing (as the first obvious choice,
> >
> > if ! /bin/cmp -s /etc/defaults/etc/profile /etc/profile; then
Same here. This shouldn't have been a negation, and thus a missing cmp
will be safe.
> > /bin/rm /etc/profile
> > fi
> >
> > would have).
>
> #!/bin/sh
> [ -f /etc/preremove/base-files-manifest.lst ] || exit 0
>
> echo "*** Removing unmodified base files."
> echo "*** These will be updated by the postinstall script."
> echo "*** Please wait."
>
> while read f; do
> /bin/cmp -s "${f}" "/etc/defaults${f}"
> if [ "`echo $?`" -eq "0" ]; then
> echo ${f} hasn't been modified, it will be updated
> /bin/rm -f "${f}"
> fi
> done < base-files-manifest.lst
^^^
Shouldn't this be "/etc/preremove/base-files-manifest.lst"?
Also, why not simply
while read f; do
if /bin/cmp -s "${f}" "/etc/defaults${f}"; then
echo $f hasn't been modified, it will be updated
/bin/rm -f "${f}"
fi
done < /etc/preremove/base-files-manifest.lst
or even
while read f; do
/bin/cmp -s "${f}" "/etc/defaults${f}" && \
echo $f hasn't been modified, it will be updated && \
/bin/rm -f "${f}"
done < /etc/preremove/base-files-manifest.lst
> but I'll add the test for diffutils :)
No need -- it should be safe here. You really need this test if you want
to distinguish between "false" (i.e., 1..126) and "missing" (i.e., 127).
> This way the skel files will be upgraded in the same manner.
>
> I have been wondering how best to release this, there have been
> several patches to profile, but if I release a new package with the
> new version of profile then the preremove script will never
> upgrade... but how long do I (we? ;) give people to upgrade?
>
> J.
Maybe just add a note in the announcement (and, of course, the README)
that if the /etc/profile doesn't contain any customizations, one should
remove it before upgrading the "base-files" package to be able to get the
latest versions in the future...
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
Re: Missing dependency: libtool-devel requires file
Max Bowsher wrote: libtool-devel should require file, since without file, win32_libid always returns unknown, breaking any attempt to use DLLs. Noted, thanks. Next release will incorporate this change. == Chuck
Re: Missing dependency: libtool-devel requires file
Charles Wilson wrote: > Max Bowsher wrote: >> libtool-devel should require file, since without file, win32_libid always >> returns unknown, breaking any attempt to use DLLs. > > Noted, thanks. Next release will incorporate this change. Thanks, I see you've updated setup.hint already, so it'll be fixed as soon as the mirrors update, new release or not. Though an update to 1.5.6 would be pleasant none-the-less :-) Thanks, Max.
