Re: Update: perl-Win32-GUI, perl-libwin32
Corinna Vinschen schrieb: On Apr 18 21:36, Reini Urban wrote: What about perl-Win32-GUI? I didn't realize that there was another package to upload due to your unnecessary long email (g!). Now, if you resend the links together with a so far missing setup.hint file? http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/release/perl-Win32-GUI/perl-Win32-GUI-1.0-2.tar.bz2 http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/release/perl-Win32-GUI/perl-Win32-GUI-1.0-2-src.tar.bz2 http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/release/perl-Win32-GUI/setup.hint -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/ http://phpwiki.org/
Re: Update: perl-Win32-GUI, perl-libwin32
On Apr 19 08:11, Reini Urban wrote: http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/release/perl-Win32-GUI/perl-Win32-GUI-1.0-2.tar.bz2 http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/release/perl-Win32-GUI/perl-Win32-GUI-1.0-2-src.tar.bz2 http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/release/perl-Win32-GUI/setup.hint Thanks, uploaded. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Please upload: doxygen v1.4.2-20050410 (3nd take)
Is that ready to upload now? Corinna On Apr 15 16:51, Hans W. Horn wrote: Max, Max Bowsher wrote: Hans W. Horn wrote: I've uploaded another cut of doxygen v142 src binary packages to http://www.smithii.com/files/cygwin/hans/, addressing more concerns/suggestions raised by Max Bowsher. In particular: 1. removing pdf manual 2. including upstream source tarball 3. package naming issues [...] -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Please upload: doxygen v1.4.2-20050410 (3nd take)
Corinna Vinschen wrote: Is that ready to upload now? No. I'll reply to Hans' last mail with detail. Max.
Re: Please upload: doxygen v1.4.2-20050410 (3nd take)
Hans W. Horn wrote: Max, Max Bowsher wrote: Package naming still incorrect. It should be: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1.tar.bz2 doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1-src.tar.bz2 Fixed. No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 VERSION is anything which begins with a digit, and does not contain a '-'. RELEASE is a simple integer, starting at 1, incremented if there is a need to release a new Cygwin package of the same upstream version. Also, please could you briefly describe the purpose and origin of the following parts of the patch: +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/addon/doxywizard/version.cpp 1969-12-31 16:00:00.0 -0800 addon/doxywizard/version.cpp is created during the build and removed during a 'make distclean'. The upstream version I was diffing against, must not have been made 'distclean'. I haved removed the offending file from the upstream version I am diffing against! OK. +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/language.doc 2005-04-12 08:19:02.941256000 -0700 +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/translator_report.txt 2005-04-12 08:19:05.404798400 -0700 +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/examples/example.tag 2005-04-15 08:12:16.622246400 -0700 These files are touched during a 'make install_docs'. diffs seem to be meaningless! Is there a way to exclude them from the patch file (I mean automatically)? diff --help | fgrep exclude The Cygwin-specific readme should be wrapped to remain within 80 columns. Fixed! But, please, take a look at doxygen-1.2.18.README and tell me how many chars per line you see! And, by the way, the previous doxygen-1.2.18 version did ship with a pdf version of its manual A fresh start is a wonderful time to fix old bugs. Max.
Package making guidelines question
When a packager follows a pseudo-Method 2 approach, using a home-grown script not based on generic-build-script, how closely must the naming and behaviour of the script follow the official template? What degree of automation is required in terms of setup? Do we require that the included script be capable of rebuilding the packages entirely by itself, or is it permissible to require manual tar, patch, etc., commands first? Max.
Request for pkg-config update
Pkg-config maintainer, please could we have an update? Current is 0.17.2, Cygwin package is 0.15.0. The new release fixes some minor syntax glitches in pkg.m4, which the current autoconf package warns about loudly. Thanks, Max.
Which package is required to build LexYacc in cygwin [gcc -ll]
Hi all, I tried to make my parser under Cygwin environment. It works well under the Linux but I have to do it also in Cygwin. It cannot find gcc -ll command: This is my result: gcc l.uql.c y.uql.c -o uql -ll /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/3.4.1/../../../../i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ld: cannot find -ll collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [uql] Error 1 Does anybody know which package is required to build my application? Any help would be appriciated. Krisakorn
Re: Which package is required to build LexYacc in cygwin [gcc -ll]
On Apr 19 13:51, Krisakorn Rerkrai wrote: Hi all, I tried to make my parser under Cygwin environment. It works well under the Linux but I have to do it also in Cygwin. It cannot find gcc -ll command: This is my result: gcc l.uql.c y.uql.c -o uql -ll /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/3.4.1/../../../../i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ld: cannot find -ll collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [uql] Error 1 Does anybody know which package is required to build my application? Any help would be appriciated. Wrong mailing list. Please ask these questions on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
RE: Vital information for anyone debugging setup.exe
Original Message From: Reini Urban Sent: 18 April 2005 20:14 Dave Korn schrieb: NO! NO!!! NOOOo !!1!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T USE INSIGHT ONLY EVER USE COMMAND-LINE GDB AAARRRGRGH MY EYES HA! Do you know how many windows there are by the time that each of three .ini files have been read to the 100% mark? Do you know how slowly each one of those windows closes when there's hundreds of them? I manually clicked away every single one of them because I wasn't sure if I'd be able to reproduce the error or not, so once I'd got it I didn't want to let it go. It was late at night and my judgement may have been impaired by sleep-deprivation! Nevertheless I still prefer insight over gdb. You just have to turn off those misdirected dialog popups, which should be logfile entries. Yes, I kind of deduced that do you know what the syntax is to turn them off, by any chance? ObTopic: Oh, it's time to repost that do-the-dll-last patch again, with more tidyups and generally finalised. Will get to it shortly. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today
Re: Package making guidelines question
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Max Bowsher wrote: When a packager follows a pseudo-Method 2 approach, using a home-grown script not based on generic-build-script, how closely must the naming and behaviour of the script follow the official template? I don't think there is a particular set of requirements on this, but at the very least, when extracted by setup.exe to /usr/src, the script should not produce a name conflict with either other source packages or, more importantly, previous versions of the sources for the same package, which leaves very little room for variation in naming. What degree of automation is required in terms of setup? Do we require that the included script be capable of rebuilding the packages entirely by itself, or is it permissible to require manual tar, patch, etc., commands first? Behavior-wise, the script should, IMO, at the very least provide a way of creating a patched source directory. I don't think having full automation is (or should be) a requirement. As long as the package README is clear on what steps are needed, it's ok to require manual steps towards the build. Again, I don't set the policy for these things, so the above is just my opinion. 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! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
ANNOUNCEMENT NEEDED! (was Re: Please upload: Apache-1.3.33-1)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 08:23:40PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: Hi all, please upload a new Apache-1.3.33 package available here: http://www.fast4ward.de/cygwin/release/apache/apache-1.3.33-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.fast4ward.de/cygwin/release/apache/apache-1.3.33-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fast4ward.de/cygwin/release/apache/setup.hint Release focus: Update from version 1.3.29 The Apache package contains the mod_ssl EAPI patch but no additional module extensions. These are part of further releases. Since this package is a replacement of an older version, I do not think this release increases the risk of conflicts with an upcoming Apache2 package. Robert, Is there some problem with sending out a release announcement for this package? I assumed that you were stepping up to be the maintainer of apache 1.3. That means that you need to send an announcement and, then, you will need to subsequently start replying to problems in the cygwin mailing list. I don't think I performed the due diligence to discover if you were really volunteering to be a full-time maintainer for apache 1.3. Was I mistaken in assuming that you were? cgf
Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
Alright, Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. Fixed (I think). +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/language.doc +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/translator_report.txt +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/examples/example.tag These files are touched during a 'make install_docs'. Excluded offending diffs from patch. Same url (http://www.smithii.com/files/cygwin/hans/): -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 2273644 Apr 19 11:58 doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1-src.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 1999837 Apr 19 11:58 doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 183 Apr 19 11:58 md5.sum -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 353 Apr 19 11:58 setup.hint H.
Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:30:12AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. NAME-VERSION-RELEASE is subtle? That's interesting. cgf
Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
It's only subtle, until you've digested that in this notation RELEASE is a cygwin version attribute and VERSION is an upstream version attribute (which on its own may already use a similar naming convention, such as doxygen-1.4.2-20050410). Confused the hell out of me! H. Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:30:12AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. NAME-VERSION-RELEASE is subtle? That's interesting. cgf
Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:42:04AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: It's only subtle, until you've digested that in this notation RELEASE is a cygwin version attribute and VERSION is an upstream version attribute (which on its own may already use a similar naming convention, such as doxygen-1.4.2-20050410). Confused the hell out of me! http://cygwin.com/setup.html#naming seems pretty clear to me. Anyway, doxygen-1.4.2-20050410 is not using a similar naming convention. It is a version number with a dash in it. The - is not a release and it should be pretty clear that it can't be a cygwin release given the above URL. cgf
RE: Vital information for anyone debugging setup.exe
[snip] Nevertheless I still prefer insight over gdb. You just have to turn off those misdirected dialog popups, which should be logfile entries. Yes, I kind of deduced that do you know what the syntax is to turn them off, by any chance? I think he's talking about doing a search-n-replace on the setup source. -- Gary R. Van Sickle
RE: Vital information for anyone debugging setup.exe
Original Message From: Gary R. Van Sickle Sent: 19 April 2005 19:05 [snip] Nevertheless I still prefer insight over gdb. You just have to turn off those misdirected dialog popups, which should be logfile entries. Yes, I kind of deduced that do you know what the syntax is to turn them off, by any chance? I think he's talking about doing a search-n-replace on the setup source. It would probably be easier simpler and quicker to find the messagebox call in the insight source (most of which is just tcl/tk scripting after all) and comment it out. Actually it should probably be properly removed and sent upstream as a patch. Opening a fresh window per log message is just plain wrong on pretty much any host or target I can imagine. One window with debug messages scrolling up, yes; one window, that blocks execution until it is clicked away, maybe; one window, that simply overwrites it's message with each new debug message as it arrives, ok; but opening window after window after window without limit? Debug messages just don't belong in dialog boxes. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today
Re: Request for pkg-config update
Max Bowsher wrote: Pkg-config maintainer, please could we have an update? Current is 0.17.2, Cygwin package is 0.15.0. Thanks. Development seemed stalled for so long I thought it was dead. I'll roll an update out soon. -- Chuck
Re: Vital information for anyone debugging setup.exe
Dave Korn wrote: It would probably be easier simpler and quicker to find the messagebox call in the insight source (most of which is just tcl/tk scripting after all) and comment it out. Perhaps you missed my other reply: Heh, you noticed that too... I googled for a way to disable the popups, but found nothing. I just comment out the OutputDebugString() call in msg() when using insight. Comment out that one line and they're gone... Brian
