Re: [ITP] rebase
At 06:02 PM 1/25/2003, Max Bowsher wrote: >Charles Wilson wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > >> > >> I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality - > >> this is core infrastructure after all. > > > > "pro" from me. Actually, rebase probably should be in the 'Base' > > category, IMO. > >What exactly are the criteria for "Base"? > >Whilst we are talking about it, I think "ncurses" might no longer need to be >"Base", now there is "libncurses?". > >Since rebasing is not necessary in many circumstances, should rebase be >"Base"? It seems unnecessary to force it to be installed, especially as it >is so easy to install packages when you need them. Are we planning to flag DLLs that require invoking rebase when installed via setup? If so, then I agree with Max's statement. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Fwd: Re: Install of predefined packages
My first post of this bounced for some, annoying reason. ;-) >I believe the thread I pointed you to has the solution >for how to get your local mirror packages (whatever they >might be) installed by default with setup (i.e. add them to >the base package). If you're looking to restrict user >interaction so that there are no options that the user >can select at all via setup (or you want to limit them in >some way), I don't know that you can do that currently (others >might know otherwise and may chime in... looking at the source >is the only solution I can offer in this regard). There are >some command line options to the new setup but you'll need >to review the email archives for this list to find out what >they are and if they'll help you further with this goal (assuming >you don't peruse the source of course). > >Larry > >Original Message: >- >From: a12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:03:02 +0100 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Install of predefined packages > > >Hello Larry, > >Thank you for your reply. > >I have read (and reread) the mentioned post and all following >posts. >The proposed solution is to create a local mirror, and let it >be included into the list of available mirrors during execution >of Cygwin setup.exe > >I would like to have a setup.exe that allows the installer to >install all packages from the local mirror only and not let >the installer choose which packages to install (as is done with >Cygwin setup.exe). > >Another solution would be to create my own setup.exe, if I do >know what Cygwin setup.exe does. Can you provide that >information ? > > >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > > > Actually, this has been discussed, though I expect it was probably > > at [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may want to look there. A quick search > > of the archives unearthed the URL below, which I believe is your question > > as well. > > > > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-09/msg00214.html > > > > If you have further questions about this that aren't answered in that > > thread or the setup documentation at the Cygwin web site, please > > post them to cygwin-apps.com. I've redirected the address for this email > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the event that you need to continue this > > thread. > > > > Larry > > > > Original Message: > > - > > From: a12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:40:59 +0100 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Install of predefined packages > > > > Hello cygwin gurus, > > > > Pardon my ignorance but after scanning mailing lists online, I > > have not found any hints to my question. > > > > I would like to roll out a predefined set of packages to a > > number of WinNT/Win2K PC. I have fetched setup.exe, and > > obtained the desired packages to H:\cygwin, and installed them > > into C:\cygwin . I used setup.exe to mark the desired packages. > > Now I would like to omit marking the desired packages, and > > just install all the packages. Is it possible ? > > > > Any hints will be greatly appreciated. > > > > -- > > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html > > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > > > > > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Fw: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe
At 05:05 PM 11/19/2002, Mark Bradshaw wrote: > Maybe some of it would. I think the problem is that the cygwin installer > assumes that you actually know about cygwin and want to install it. I >think > there's a lot of windows folks who hear about ssh/openssh and want it, but > don't know about or want the cygwin environment. They just want to push > "next" a few times and have an openssh server, never mind this bash stuff. > I'm not sure you can really "fix" the cygwin installer, since it's not > broken. It's just too general for the task. It's not clear (to me at least) that this is the major hindrance, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Seems to me that the existing Cygwin setup suffices in this respect if there is a step-by-step installation document for those that don't want anything other than what's necessary to run SSH. But I'm sure there's improvements to setup that would make pre-configured Cygwin installations of specific utilities possible too, though that's a "future". > As I've told Rob I've about reached the end of my interest in doing a > separate package. In fact that's been the case for a while, but I'm not > sure I have any good input on how to handle this problem in another fashion > other than a separate install process. I'd certainly be willing to help if > someone has a suggestion. I think the list would benefit from knowing what your installation does and how it configures things. It would also be beneficial to know what are common problems and solutions with your package. Knowing this helps pinpoint general user issues. Is this information you can provide? If so, perhaps someone here can help relieve you of the need to provide your separate installation. ;-) > Mark > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:10 PM > > Subject: Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe > > > > > > > Perhaps I'm misreading Max's intent but I believe he's suggesting that > > there > > > is more to gain by understanding, categorizing, and finding the solution > > to > > > users' problems with Cygwin's OpenSSH installation than in trying to > > generate > > > a different, incompatible installation. Wouldn't at least some of what > > you've > > > learned about creating your OpenSSH version based on Cygwin be helpful >in > > > making the Cygwin installation simpler? Is there a reason not to pursue > > this > > > goal? > > > > > > Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com > > > 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office > > > Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX > > # # # # # # # # #
Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe
Perhaps I'm misreading Max's intent but I believe he's suggesting that there is more to gain by understanding, categorizing, and finding the solution to users' problems with Cygwin's OpenSSH installation than in trying to generate a different, incompatible installation. Wouldn't at least some of what you've learned about creating your OpenSSH version based on Cygwin be helpful in making the Cygwin installation simpler? Is there a reason not to pursue this goal? Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX At 12:50 PM 11/19/2002, Mark Bradshaw wrote: >If a small howto would fix the problem then I think Mike Erdeley's would've >fixed it, but it hasn't. > >- Original Message - >From: "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Mark Bradshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:41 PM >Subject: Re: Detecting NetworkSimplicity in setup.exe > > > > > "Max Bowsher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't see any problem with being mutually exclusive, though. If > > >> someone wants Cygwin, they don't need NetworkSimplicity. > > >> ( Better still would be for NetworkSimplicity to metamorphose from a > > >> binary distribution to a HOWTO ) > > > > Mark Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://netsim.ibforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=194 > > > > > > The third post shows the problem. People don't know where to go once > > > they're done with the installer. > > > > OK... so wouldn't a (*very* small) HOWTO solve that? > > > > Max. > > > >
RE: clisp
OK. If you didn't see what you were looking for in the package list, then the official answer to your question is - the package does not exist. If no one else pipes up in response to your query with information about a private attempt to do what you're looking for, I think it's fair to assume that this is a previously unexplored area. Feel free to explore it yourself. If you create a package, please consider contributing it. I'm sure there will be others now or in the future that would benefit from your efforts. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX At 05:18 AM 10/29/2002, Alex Tibbles wrote: >Sorry. I didn't make it clear. I've searched the >package listing you mention (which by the way seems >very slow). There is no mention of any lisp packages >(except the lisp sources for emacs - not much use >without a lisp system!). The main stab of my question >was the history - I don't know that much about past >packages and was wondering if anyone maintained a lisp >system package for cygwin. >Given that there are cygwin binaries available, I >thought that making a package should be pretty easy. > >alex > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See >www.cygwin.com/packages > > > > Larry > > > > Original Message: > > - > > From: Alex Tibbles [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:32:09 + (GMT) > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: clisp > > > > > > + is there, or has there ever been, a cygwin package > > for clisp (http://clisp.cons.org/)? > > + is there a maintainer for such a package, or if > > there has been such a package, who was the > > maintainer? > > + are there, or have there been, packages for gcl > > (GNU > > Common Lisp), CMU CL (Carnegie Mellon Universtity > > Common Lisp)? > > > > Info: the clisp project release cygwin binaries. gcl > > has mingw32 binaries. > > > > alex > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Everything you'll ever need on one web page >from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts >http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: Download stats
At 10:09 PM 10/24/2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:29:15PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: > >Oh, OK. That answer is also no. Are you sensing a pattern here? ;-) > >I'm sensing a certain vague menace; an underlying meanness, yes. Excellent. Then I'm not being too subtle. ;-) Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
RE: Download stats
Oh, OK. That answer is also no. Are you sensing a pattern here? ;-) Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX At 10:39 AM 10/24/2002, William A. Hoffman wrote: >No, I mean how many downloads for package Y. > >-Bill > > >At 09:37 AM 10/24/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Assuming you mean "how long does it take to download package Y", no. > > > >Larry > > > >Original Message: > >- > >From: William A. Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:30:38 -0400 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Download stats > > > > > >Just curious, are there any download stats kept for cygwin packages? > > > >-Bill > > > > > > > >mail2web - Check your email from the web at > >http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: RFC: setup.ini change
At 07:16 PM 4/29/2002, Lapo Luchini wrote: >>install: release/bash/bash-2901.tar.bz2 276403 >>158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9e >>source: release/bash/bash-2901-src.tar.bz2 1892899 >>158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9f >> >>Any preference folk? >> >Why don't directly inline? (filename length md5sum) > >install: release/bash/bash-2901.tar.bz2 276403 158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9e >source: release/bash/bash-2901-src.tar.bz2 1892899 >158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9f I'm guessing you didn't notice that Rob's proposal was "inline". It's various email clients that are doing the apparent line wrap (as you'll notice with your email above). Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: Best place for WindowMaker, Openbox, etc.?
At 05:08 PM 4/29/2002, Harold Hunt wrote: >I've created Cygwin setup.exe packages for the X11 window managers >WindowMaker and Openbox. I have tentatively put them in >release/XFree86/WindowMaker and release/XFree86/openbox... is that a good >idea? Or, should I give each X package a toplevel directory in release/? The latter please. Thanks, Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: ITP: netpbm
At 11:51 AM 4/29/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote: >"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote: > > > > At 07:44 AM 4/29/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote: >-8<- > > The point is, the extra path walks are > > >expensive. > > > > Quite true. But I would say that Corinna's suggestion, from a strict > > technical perspective, makes netpbm in a different bin directory usable > > 'out-of-the-box' under Cygwin. If netpbm were going to be put in it's > > own bin directory, I would say that adding files like the ones Corinna > > suggests is an absolute requirement. > > > >Yes, but you missed the point. > >Go ahead, add something to the end of your PATH and execute it with >strace. Then see how many times the pathing routines are called to >search for a symlink. It's once for each directory listed in PATH and I >mean each directory listed in the path name of the path list (E.G.: a >PATH of /usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin has six directories in it). And if >someone has a symlink in PATH, it's called again to see if the file >pointed to by the symlink is a symlink. Note, the coding is necessary >for symlink simulation, but it's slows down time it takes to find the >binary file to exec. Keep the binaries to the front of the PATH and put >them in /bin. Thanks for this explanation. It's good to have this information for the email archives. Also, I wasn't disagreeing with the point you were making. Personally, I think it is yet another reason not to split binaries out into separate directories without good reason. But this is a technical issue. My point was that *if* someone were planning to put binaries of netpbm or any other package in it's own bin directory, something like Corinna's suggestion is needed to make it usable in Cygwin by anyone right after installation. Without something like that, the installation is broken and this list gets flooded with questions about why the package doesn't work. So Corinna's suggestion addresses this issue but not yours. They are two separate issues, both of which have been discussed in this thread. From a sanity perspective, I'm more concerned about making sure any new approach to packaging doesn't confuse users and overwhelm the Cygwin list. Performance only falls into that category for me if the affect is so drastic that a good subset of users complain. Since it wasn't obvious to me that Corinna's suggestion automatically creates that situation, I'm not as concerned about it, though I do acknowledge it. But I think there's some consensus that extra bin directories is "bad" for any of a number of reasons, including the issue of performance, so I don't think anyone will be pushing the idea at this point. Though maybe I'm wrong... ;-) Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: ITP: netpbm
At 07:44 AM 4/29/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote: >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 06:04:55PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: > > > But everyone will complain if they can't run the package after they install > > > it. I think we should absolutely avoid the latter case. The former > > > we can deal with as required. > > > > What's the problem in adding two files to the package: > > > > /etc/profile.d/netpbm.sh: > > > > PATH=$PATH:/usr/netpbm/bin export $PATH > > > > /etc/profile.d/netpbm.csh: > > > > set path = ( $path /usr/netpbm/bin ) > > > >Because I would `mv /usr/netpbm/bin/* /usr/bin/ && rm -rf /usr/netpbm && >rm -f /etc/profile.d/netpbm*'. The point is, the extra path walks are >expensive. Quite true. But I would say that Corinna's suggestion, from a strict technical perspective, makes netpbm in a different bin directory usable 'out-of-the-box' under Cygwin. If netpbm were going to be put in it's own bin directory, I would say that adding files like the ones Corinna suggests is an absolute requirement. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
RE: ITP: netpbm
At 01:40 PM 4/27/2002, Robert Collins wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:46 AM > >... > > But cygwin is used on > > both NTFS and > > FAT... > >Which is the killer question: is adding a directory to the search path >more or less of a performance hog than adding x-100 .exes and/or .dll's >to the /usr/bin directory. And will the inevitable 'my dos script can't >find netpbm foobar tool' questions be worth it? No, not in my book. >Well my system32 directory here has 1971 files. Adding a coupla hundred >optional files doesn't seem all that bad to me. > >And hey, if FAT is too slow, folk can always install the windows ext2 >driver. Right, there are alternatives to this issue. I believe performance is an important concern but not to the exclusion of simple usability. Some people will complain if this package causes things to slow down for them. But everyone will complain if they can't run the package after they install it. I think we should absolutely avoid the latter case. The former we can deal with as required. Just my $.02. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: ITP: netpbm
At 04:40 PM 4/26/2002, Charles Wilson wrote: >Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: > >>At 04:03 PM 4/26/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> >>>As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't there a limit >>>to the number of files and/or directory entries in any one directory on >>>win32? >>I remember something vague about the number of entries in a directory on FAT (not >FAT32) partitions but I'm not sure whether it applies to files, >>directories, or both (probably both). Depending on what the restriction is, this >may be a good argument for being cautious of putting too much stuff in bin. Anybody >remember more about this FAT limitation? > > >You can only have 512 entries in the ROOT directory of a partition. However, long >file names take up more than one entry, so under VFAT this limitation is actually >worse than in FAT. > >However, directories other than the root are unlimited in size (except by your >patience, and vision) That's the ticket! OK, this is a non-issue then (good!). Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: ITP: netpbm
At 04:23 PM 4/26/2002, you wrote: >Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: > >>They can be accommodated by providing a script with the package that moves the files >elsewhere if this becomes a big issue, no? > > >upgrades? Run the script again. >Also, user customized installations belong in /usr/local; don't mess with /usr if you >want support from the list. OK, if you're suggesting this is an argument against the script I mentioned, fine by me. I don't think it's needed either. I was just trying to point out that there are alternatives for those individuals who preferred their installation of netpbm to go in other directories. I wasn't really proposing a specific solution. >I'd probably end up ignoring Jan's package and rebuilding my own version (which goes >into: > >/usr/local/bin/netpbm/* >/usr/local/lib/ >/usr/local/include/ >etc... > >Or maybe downloading Jan's -src package with each new release and rebuilding it after >changing the prefix...and the /bin/netpbm/ ... Right. That's an option too for those who want something different than setup would provide. I guess I can live with netpbm packaged with it's own bin directory if it handles adding the special directory to PATH and given that it is the exception to the rule like you mentioned. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: ITP: netpbm
At 04:03 PM 4/26/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote: >As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't there a limit >to the number of files and/or directory entries in any one directory on >win32? I remember something vague about the number of entries in a directory on FAT (not FAT32) partitions but I'm not sure whether it applies to files, directories, or both (probably both). Depending on what the restriction is, this may be a good argument for being cautious of putting too much stuff in bin. Anybody remember more about this FAT limitation? Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: ITP: netpbm
At 03:57 PM 4/26/2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not sure why this makes more sense for this package than it would for
>>any package. So, to me, this is not a requirement for generating this package or at
>least not at this time, unless somebody can point out how
>>this package would be considered "special" in this regard.
>>In general, I don't see the advantage to having many "bin" directories,
>>at least insofar as it moves toward separate bin directories for every
>>package. It would just lead to the proliferation of directories in PATH or many
>complaints on this list stating "I installed X but when I run it,
>>it says 'X: command not found'!!!" I'd rather avoid either of these alternatives.
>
>
>Funny you should use 'X' as your variable. Think /usr/X11R6/bin/...
Yep, I'm good at things like that! ;-)
>I agree, we shouldn't worry too much about keeping /bin "clean" -- although
>distributions are moving towards putting stuff into /opt/pkg/* and making symlinks
>these days.
>
>However, IMO netpbm, like XF86, is a special case -- how many other packages have 223
>executable files and scripts? ("KDE" doesn't count; the KDE environment consists of
>lots of different packages; netpbm is one integral unit (or at most 4). And besides,
>doesn't KDE install into its own tree?)
OK, if you want to use the yardstick of "What's the convention on UNIX" as
a guideline, I guess that makes sense, excluding the free-for-all idea of
putting all packages in /opt/ptg/* and symlinking. Is there any de-facto
standard directory tree for netpbm in the UNIX world? If so, then maybe
it's worth adopting. If not, then I say it's best to just lump it all in
/usr/bin with everything else. Since it's an optional package, the number
of users that might prefer it otherwise will be a percentage of a percentage
of those who choose to install it. They can be accommodated by providing a
script with the package that moves the files elsewhere if this becomes a big
issue, no?
Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: ITP: netpbm
At 02:38 PM 4/26/2002, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >Jan schrieb: > > > Today I've taken a look at the netpbm package. Pierre Humblet, who's > > listed as Cygwin porter, is not considering to contribute it as Cygwin > > package, but was fine with me packaging it. > > > I've only done a few quick tests, from ps->pnm->png. URLs below. > > Cast your votes now. > >Thumbs up from me;) > >BUT: >Is it possible to put all the binaries into a separate directory >and not to flood /bin ? > >There are 223 .exe files (the scripts and .dll not counted)! I'm not sure why this makes more sense for this package than it would for any package. So, to me, this is not a requirement for generating this package or at least not at this time, unless somebody can point out how this package would be considered "special" in this regard. In general, I don't see the advantage to having many "bin" directories, at least insofar as it moves toward separate bin directories for every package. It would just lead to the proliferation of directories in PATH or many complaints on this list stating "I installed X but when I run it, it says 'X: command not found'!!!" I'd rather avoid either of these alternatives. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: xfree packages
At 08:29 PM 4/10/2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:47:31AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > >"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Setup is case insensitive to package names. I don't see any technical > >> issue either way. > > > >Me neither, I only see a social issue: it's just plain irritating for > >people? > > > > tar xjf releases/mysTABTAB ^U > > tar xjf releases/MyTABTAB ^U > > > >etc, aargh? It's ever more annoying when you're using wget, and try > >to guess the name. > >I thought I'd replied to this but I guess I hadn't. > >I really don't think we should use tab completion as a justification for >picking package names. The package names should reflect what the >authors want to call the package. If the name of the package is XFree86, >it should be called XFree86. Ditto, TeX, or any other package. > >AFAICT, both Red Hat and Debian allow upper/lower case, so there's no >reason for us to restrict things. I went so far as to type a response and then trash it, since I thought it was getting off-topic for this list. But thinking again, it supports Chris's position, even though it has been mentioned many a time on the Cygwin list. I'm thinking of the 'completion-ignore-case' option in bash. Seems to me that this addresses the concern. I'm certainly all for mixed-case names. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
RE: setup.exe gui testing
At 09:37 AM 3/28/2002, Stanislav Sinyagin wrote: >--- Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that is a fine goal, but I don't see why that means removing > > functionality from the gui. > >once I've started dreaming, what about another pretty thing -- Jumpstart? >A text file describing all setup options and packages, so that you >easily reproduce the whole installation on your new machine? >And of course, the jumpstart file generator. Before dreaming up too many things and posting them, you should review the ideas and functionality that has been discussed already. This particular feature already exists. All packages in the base category are installed by default. Simply add the packages you want to install to the "requires:" list. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Re: multiple dll's cause app to hang
At 11:29 AM 12/19/2001, John Jones wrote: >dear all > >I have what I would call a major problem. >(common across all machine types I have here) > >when I compile a application such as sed and cygwin1.dll everything works but if I >try and mix my dll with the net version it hangs See the FAQ entry: Is it OK to have multiple copies of the DLL? http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_4.html#SEC50 Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
