Re: SSH key for upload access
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 07:05:10PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 03:49:52PM -0700, Peter A. Castro wrote: >>Name: Peter A. Castro >>Package: zsh >>SSHkey: ssh-rsa >>B3NzaC1yc2EDAQABAAAEAQDFdqRkJQbjhJeoggEzOym1belbKv1IIJn+gAzqufl7BwOYcvtZ9hrqZLIdD4QtZLMJbGDRYzEEeXJqCcOy3OJjJ3PUq4q0CuZwiVppNlytxLlim7/0Ex+6gPTHS02nae9aFlMqIx+VVLn10yPj4N/wp/oNKKocWGi7cac42VTmwn6UadhznvkWu0q/f7lJbw4VdpdQz4w/I03C2x5rmuWW9W34GNkhtFudRkUfSaj+WPp2oabsN0EgdUnhcHB8K57y3oXAXMmHDGaf1SVLmlewZVYrKngmW3U9E6yFE20K+Di6I6yAeBmcfyUa7XlRZMO6s4GkqJI7wPa0CzUDv7wkn+RRr7SpHfI6dbGasFdJqgplOwPwjg0F4UN7Pn57MzgHGa9RFIWp7hiieuwh21rmWVQCqi7cLvCDC+734m51XYi21KzZT9OWOZGQELkYOpE5PXmuaIPDWJUWompqqu6blgvRKs5VRjimy7dcjQIni25Hj0Ai/81HKoMAOtaTrbx2LCg6zHQ9vkGK42do3DC8W93QNfPeAOFI14uTx35NYJagAEltiCAZp0wRZMlxVzECpX0LEdKRhAzYpMtpH+nkLKrWHiGISJIlFXKVc3Jr1H8gNW7BBtA/rKzeAXJa0vetYuO9ErGpnFwxC7jQIKg+Im2Nut0zMwmiXzvwo1XM/1x5lCf9EUDxs42CkPIh8GgUA6gnrGk0SmGaByZfyT0IrTrXo9INM+tZzHOGQK2/3WQPPP/mbTj6GgHFPMT/MfnIrwA1/r2N3U2GAQN6k5/QbgRG9blQw1Ukd2X4TKJLITKTnYN1VsTgCrwcotS2fQ7y2yVdHmTBxcNdO7f3lGa18v0dvpZXx1HcF4wbSsx4AYVHKWUlyuvLMzamT85bxDlABu7KKZddJrSS660W3Ts7vwEutc9oWluStBRB06doIDlyk! >> SS3PdogX+bB/W/MkNEN9HY2iMTxc+YyoLnH8Oi4Ibvv+/j8N4MJkHCxWPA/m3FkHdweXmls2IPmaLcFtdL2b53smH/cTVMq3eyg3yOEus5232fKOZYx0gMlyu8EsuSCkbYMk4QHDnlH2cwCoFNb5sXcYpkbuOO7YUzLWnGorzFdEzr3xxYjWjYessXrjPdkHRQbPibu30dP2XTzoM91f60KjI/7Ys3alPquofDuF9PFYOEy9YOQeREHGfhpIafRYybyhz0YSW1M5lsowIpzv/AM/rtGfvd97nIiRCIAR+ZBPOKmaJWBLKV7nJcYs5V/euqauvIJ9KPldgTpAbh+mZdqorBxZTFwTqdBloPCjXI2powYyWzIvVMKN2eNPakqdgM+J0LzJZw/jm4O4LDPMps+L3faKmJRmxFf9bdl >> CygwinUploads > >Activated. Actually, I take that back. Even if I concatenate the two lines the key appears to be corrupted. Could you resend? cgf
Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 08:38:38PM +0200, Achim Gratz wrote: >Christopher Faylor writes: >>>Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support >>>them the same way as in Linux distros. They still have to show up >>>twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area. >> >> i.e., just like Linux distros do. > >Not all or even most of them. The repo layout usually is like this: > >dist/ > noarch/ > i386/ > i586/ > i686/ > x86_64/ > >Setup.exe can deal just fine with such a layout when there are ../noarch >paths in setup.ini. http://mirror.pnl.gov/fedora/linux/releases/18/Fedora/x86_64/os/Packages/e/ Notice the "noarch" intermingled with x86_64. cgf
Re: Web page describing upload procedure
Christopher Faylor writes: > https://sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/package-upload.html Thank you. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada
Re: SSH key for upload access
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 07:50:41PM +0200, Damien Doligez wrote: >Name: Damien Doligez >Package: ocaml >SSHkey: ssh-rsa >B3NzaC1yc2EBIwAAAIEAuXDyTaeiftmUEFCtY7gRrAAlwp4EJkEsvHnBHmNXNJV5V6p1EEsymjgtLh/jfTHcBHYbHZSOwBo3LmsQ9eSkHGHU7ya52013yEvVVCY+BLebE/PtUwrlx5yvWp8y+bQDVPBZnFYo4iQ6qdwCWIgwKYGyaQbEArO1ThHhobrUG4c= > doligez Activated.
Web page describing upload procedure
https://sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/package-upload.html
Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64
On Oct 23 13:42, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:58:56AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Oct 22 22:49, Balaji wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> > On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote: > >> [...] > >> >> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin > >> >> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is > >> >> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also, > >> >> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script > >> >> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice? > >> >> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans. > >> > > >> > Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries. And of > >> > course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing > >> > package. > >> > >> One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch > >> packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something > >> a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a > >> maintainer and user perspective? > > > >Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support > >them the same way as in Linux distros. They still have to show up > >twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area. > > i.e., just like Linux distros do. Well, kind of. OpenSuSE provides subdirectories i586/i686, x86_64, and noarch for packages which are target-independent, which is neat. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat pgposnXkru0vX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64
Christopher Faylor writes: >>Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support >>them the same way as in Linux distros. They still have to show up >>twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area. > > i.e., just like Linux distros do. Not all or even most of them. The repo layout usually is like this: dist/ noarch/ i386/ i586/ i686/ x86_64/ Setup.exe can deal just fine with such a layout when there are ../noarch paths in setup.ini. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds
SSH key for upload access
Name: Damien Doligez Package: ocaml SSHkey: ssh-rsa B3NzaC1yc2EBIwAAAIEAuXDyTaeiftmUEFCtY7gRrAAlwp4EJkEsvHnBHmNXNJV5V6p1EEsymjgtLh/jfTHcBHYbHZSOwBo3LmsQ9eSkHGHU7ya52013yEvVVCY+BLebE/PtUwrlx5yvWp8y+bQDVPBZnFYo4iQ6qdwCWIgwKYGyaQbEArO1ThHhobrUG4c= doligez
Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:58:56AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Oct 22 22:49, Balaji wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote: >> [...] >> >> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin >> >> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is >> >> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also, >> >> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script >> >> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice? >> >> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans. >> > >> > Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries. And of >> > course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing >> > package. >> >> One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch >> packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something >> a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a >> maintainer and user perspective? > >Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support >them the same way as in Linux distros. They still have to show up >twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area. i.e., just like Linux distros do. cgf
Re: The upload system is live (Re: Major changes coming to procedure for uploading to sourceware)
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:51:39AM -0500, Reini Urban wrote: >On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Remember also that you need to create a !ready file somewhere above the >> directory holding the packages that you want to end up in the release. >> So, if you have uploaded x86 and x86_64 packages put the !ready at the >> "root" level. If you have uploaded x86 and are working on x86_64 you >> can put the !ready in the x86 directory and then put another !ready in >> the x86_64 directory when you're done. Putting the !ready directly in >> the package directory should work too. > >Note: root !ready doesn't work yet. It's not going to work. >You need a !ready in x86 and x86_64 > >> Packages won't be moved unless upset thinks everything is ok. If there >> is something broken and your have an email address in the !email file >> then you should get email telling you what's wrong. You'll get the >> email even if the problem isn't your fault so don't panic. > >Note: !email > >Question: !mail or !email ? >The original message only had !mail Either works. cgf
Re: The upload system is live (Re: Major changes coming to procedure for uploading to sourceware)
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 04:22:37PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I think I now have a system set up which will allow maintainers to >>upload their own packages to sourceware. This system means that package >>maintainers won't have to find a public web server to make their >>packages available for the cygwin release. Every package maintainer >>will be able to upload their own stuff. General login access to >>sourceware will no longer be required to update the cygwin release. > > This system is now live. Anyone who sent in their ssh key should be > able to access sourceware via lftp/sftp. Make sure that you use > the user "cygwin" with no password and that you are using the same > ssh key as the one that you specified previously. > > Also, please create a !mail file at the top level of your area with the > email address where any upset errors should be sent. Note: !mail > Remember also that you need to create a !ready file somewhere above the > directory holding the packages that you want to end up in the release. > So, if you have uploaded x86 and x86_64 packages put the !ready at the > "root" level. If you have uploaded x86 and are working on x86_64 you > can put the !ready in the x86 directory and then put another !ready in > the x86_64 directory when you're done. Putting the !ready directly in > the package directory should work too. Note: root !ready doesn't work yet. You need a !ready in x86 and x86_64 > Packages won't be moved unless upset thinks everything is ok. If there > is something broken and your have an email address in the !email file > then you should get email telling you what's wrong. You'll get the > email even if the problem isn't your fault so don't panic. Note: !email Question: !mail or !email ? The original message only had !mail > Refer to: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-10/msg00117.html for more > detail about what's going on. Note that the sftp command used there should > be something like: -- Reini Urban http://cpanel.net/ http://www.perl-compiler.org/
Re: A couple of uploads are missing "!ready" files
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 07:23:02AM -0400, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >On 22 October 2013 23:51, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> I notice that David Stacey and Chris Sutcliffe have .tar.* files in >> their directories but no accompanying !ready files in the directories or >> in the directories above them. Without those the packages won't be >> moved. If you create a !ready in an x86_64 directory it won't apply to >> packages in x86 directories. This only applies to packages in the same >> directory or below. > >My understanding was that if I placed a "!ready" file in the root >(i.e. the directory above x86 and x86_64) it would grab the files for >both architectures. Since I had cppcheck ready for both architectures >I thought this was the correct placement of the file. > >Please let me know if I have misunderstood something. Your understanding was correct but I didn't think through how this is implemented and gave incorrect instructions. Since upset runs once for each architecture, it deletes the !ready on the first architecture and then never notices it for the second. So, for the foreseeable future, you need two !ready files. Sorry for the miscommunication. cgf
Re: A couple of uploads are missing "!ready" files
On 22 October 2013 23:51, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I notice that David Stacey and Chris Sutcliffe have .tar.* files in > their directories but no accompanying !ready files in the directories or > in the directories above them. Without those the packages won't be > moved. If you create a !ready in an x86_64 directory it won't apply to > packages in x86 directories. This only applies to packages in the same > directory or below. My understanding was that if I placed a "!ready" file in the root (i.e. the directory above x86 and x86_64) it would grab the files for both architectures. Since I had cppcheck ready for both architectures I thought this was the correct placement of the file. Please let me know if I have misunderstood something. Thank you, Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d
Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64
On Oct 22 22:49, Balaji wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote: > [...] > >> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin > >> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is > >> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also, > >> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script > >> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice? > >> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans. > > > > Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries. And of > > course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing > > package. > > One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch > packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something > a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a > maintainer and user perspective? Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support them the same way as in Linux distros. They still have to show up twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat pgpa1sLzsb4dU.pgp Description: PGP signature
