Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:40:53AM +, Gareth Pearce wrote: Hmmm I was under the impression that for a package to be accepted it needed a) - someone to check it for packaging. b) - at least 3 votes saying that it is desired to be seen in the distribution. which so long as person in a) is competant - seems fine to me. Ok, that's no. 2 and other packages are still missing the pro votes. I could step in and be no. 3 but... ...where are all the subscribers of this list? How should we ever get enough positive votes for a package if nobody cares? I always see the same names if it comes to vote for a package and I see always the same (less) names if it comes to reviewing a package. The Cygwin net distro isn't sort of a one man show, it's a community effort. It's not Chris and me who are the responsible people for reviewing a package and we are not the only people with the right to upload packages. Please note, *all* maintainers are welcome to give his/her voice for a new package. And by all means I think a positive vote should be combined with at least *some* reviewing of a package. I failed to check this in the past sometimes but I will not upload a package with less than three positive votes in future. Outstanding packages: procps (reviewed, 2 votes, John and me) ELFIO (reviewed, 2 votes, Joshua and Nicholas) doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes) astyle (NOT reviewed, 1 vote, Gareth) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
procps (reviewed, 2 votes, John and me) That's a yes from me. ELFIO (reviewed, 2 votes, Joshua and Nicholas) doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes) Ths is indeed useful, pro. astyle (NOT reviewed, 1 vote, Gareth) Abuot ELFIO and astyle I know not what they are... let's try a little Google... astyle: I used the version in jEdit and it's really useful ineed, that's a pro vote from me. ELFIO: I don't think I really understand its usefulness in a cygwin environment... the website is a little scarce in informations, too.. -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:18:16PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: Insanely busy at the moment. This is a general problem I assume. I'm doing the same as you, working just voluntarily on Cygwin. It's not a revenue generating project. least *some* reviewing of a package. I think that the two steps are very distinct. Obviously more review is good, but requiring review is not good IMO. *some*. If you're interested in a package, you're probably also interested in that this package happens to fit well into the distro and that it doesn't destroy your installation or some such, isn't it? procps (reviewed, 2 votes, John and me) I think this is an excellent thing to include. Yes. So that's no. 3. However, a questin is still if we really want to include it right now. AFAI understood it, the /proc implementation is (just slightly) buggy in that it contains a wrong uid in /proc/PID/status. As a result, procps prints the wrong user name as owner of the process. This raises two questions: - Is a patch to /proc in sight? - Shouldn't we wait until that patch is in and the next Cygwin version has been released? Chris (J)? ELFIO (reviewed, 2 votes, Joshua and Nicholas) Looks neat. Yes. Ok. Uploaded. doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes) This is quite a popular documentation system. I don't use it myself, but I know folk who do. Also, libxml and libxslt are documented via it, and they are in the distro. Yes. astyle (NOT reviewed, 1 vote, Gareth) I'm still looking for a good C++ prettier. I'll try to check this out in the next week or so. Ok, so the state is now: procps (reviewed, 3 votes, John, Robert and me, discussion needed) doxygen (reviewed, 1 vote, Robert) astyle (NOT reviewed, 1 vote, Gareth) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:37:45AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: Ok, so the state is now: Update: procps (reviewed, 4 votes, John, Lapo, Robert and me,s discussion needed) doxygen (reviewed, 2 vote, Lapo and Robert) astyle (NOT reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:40:53AM +, Gareth Pearce wrote: Hmmm I was under the impression that for a package to be accepted it needed a) - someone to check it for packaging. b) - at least 3 votes saying that it is desired to be seen in the distribution. which so long as person in a) is competant - seems fine to me. Ok, that's no. 2 and other packages are still missing the pro votes. I could step in and be no. 3 but... I still think we should keep it at 2, unless more activity is seen. ...where are all the subscribers of this list? How should we ever get enough positive votes for a package if nobody cares? I always see the same names if it comes to vote for a package and I see always the same (less) names if it comes to reviewing a package. The Cygwin net distro isn't sort of a one man show, it's a community effort. It's not Chris and me who are the responsible people for reviewing a package and we are not the only people with the right to upload packages. AMEN! Please note, *all* maintainers are welcome to give his/her voice for a new package. I was getting worried that people thought I was always voting yes for a package, so I tried cut back a little :-(. And by all means I think a positive vote should be combined with at least *some* reviewing of a package. Agreed, but I hope that more then just the usual people are expected to do this... I failed to check this in the past sometimes but I will not upload a package with less than three positive votes in future. Please, this is rediculous. It's hard enough to get people interested enough to give 2 votes. Outstanding packages: procps (reviewed, 2 votes, John and me) I voted for this one, after reviewing it. ELFIO (reviewed, 2 votes, Joshua and Nicholas) doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes) Again, I voted for it, but with the conditions that it be cleaned up a bit. astyle (NOT reviewed, 1 vote, Gareth) Haven't had a chance to check it out. I'd like to echo Corinna's point in that the apathy for new packages is disgraceful. If someone has taken the time to put a package together, the least you can do is check it out. Even if you don't, then just say so, but IMHO, silent vetos are unacceptable. Cheers, Nicholas
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
The Cygwin net distro isn't sort of a one man show, it's a community effort. It's not Chris and me who are the responsible people for reviewing a package and we are not the only people with the right to upload packages. This is one of the reasons I think that it might be better to: 1) Maintainers only approve the setup.hint file. 2) Upload the new package as test or new and let the Cygwin community as a whole have a say in the package configuration. a) Use cygwin.com for voting for the package with comments area and the form is mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] b) The package maintainer has two weeks to work the issues discussed on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] page. c) If the issues aren't fixed the package is pulled. 3) Once x count votes of approval the setup.hint can be adjusted to remove the test/new classification. a) base x on some percentage of the cygwin community population count. b) or base x on some flat number. Earnie.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
astyle (NOT reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo)
One more thing - this time it is not a package issue.
According to 'astyle --help' the program searches for .astylerc in three
places:
1) environment
2) $HOME/.astylerc
3) $HOMEPATH/.astylerc
Imo 3 is wrong - it should be ${HOMEDRIVE}${HOMEPATH}/.astylerc and the
path should be converted. I don't know if 3 will ever happen on Cygwin
having in mind that HOME is set automagically, but... :)
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote: astyle (NOT reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo) I did a review of the package itself, not of its feature. astyle contains a lot of options and since I haven't used it in the past its not easy to tell if specific options behaves as expected. Ok, here is what I've found: 1) the names of the source and binary packages, the doc directory and the source directories are not correct: astyle_1.15.3-src.tar.bz2 = astyle-1.15.3-1-src.tar.bz2 astyle_1.15.3.tar.bz2 = astyle-1.15.3-1.tar.bz2 /usr/doc/astyle_1.15.3 = /usr/doc/astyle-1.15.3 /usr/doc/Cygwin/astyle_1.15.3.README = /usr/doc/Cygwin/astyle-1.15.3.README /usr/src/astyle_1.15.3 = /usr/src/astyle-1.15.3-1 CYGWIN-PATCHES/astyle_1.15.3.README CYGWIN-PATCHES/astyle-1.15.3.README CYGWIN-PATCHES/astyle_1.15.3.patch CYGWIN-PATCHES/astyle-1.15.3-1.patch When fixing this the maintainer should also change the build receipt in /usr/doc/Cygwin/astyle-1.15.3.README. 2) the source package includes astyle.exe 3) setup.hint contains a test entry (test: 1.2.17), but i don't recall having this package as test in the Cygwin net distro, or am I wrong ? 4) the source package contains the patch in CYGWIN-PATCHES instead of the root of the archive. 5) The patch was generated with CYGWIN-PATCHES containing the patch.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 08:55:12AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: The Cygwin net distro isn't sort of a one man show, it's a community effort. It's not Chris and me who are the responsible people for reviewing a package and we are not the only people with the right to upload packages. This is one of the reasons I think that it might be better to: 1) Maintainers only approve the setup.hint file. 2) Upload the new package as test or new and let the Cygwin community as a whole have a say in the package configuration. a) Use cygwin.com for voting for the package with comments area and the form is mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] b) The package maintainer has two weeks to work the issues discussed on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] page. Counting from when? The occurence of the first bug report or the first wild complain? Who will check if it's one or the other? And who plays the keeper of the rules? c) If the issues aren't fixed the package is pulled. 3) Once x count votes of approval the setup.hint can be adjusted to remove the test/new classification. a) base x on some percentage of the cygwin community population count. b) or base x on some flat number. Since already on cygwin-apps (assumed to be the most active part of the community) only a few people actually care, how do you think that will work on cygwin? 99.999% of the people will not even get that there is some sort of voting scheme. They will tell you that the new foobaz package doesn't work on their B20, though... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
--- Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes) I actually voted for this as well as checked it out. __ Yahoo! - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:24:54AM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote: procps (reviewed, 2 votes, John and me) I voted for this one, after reviewing it. Ok, didn't see that. ELFIO (reviewed, 2 votes, Joshua and Nicholas) doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes) Again, I voted for it, but with the conditions that it be cleaned up a bit. Where? I don't see any mail from you voting for it. Only a mail Arrgh! Geocities strikes again!!! Did you review the package after Ryunosuke offered the fixed package? I take your vote now but I take a package issue, too, for now. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
Update: procps (reviewed, 5 votes, John, Lapo, Nicholas, Robert and me, discussion needed) doxygen (reviewed, 3 votes, Lapo and Robert, package cleanup needed(?)) astyle (reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo, package cleanup needed)) Btw., I'm under the impression that bookkeeping as above could be useful. Shall I try keep that going? If so, does anybody volunteer to continue that while I'm on vacation in October? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:56:59AM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: --- Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: doxygen (reviewed, 0 votes) I actually voted for this as well as checked it out. I saw your review but you didn't vote for it (hey, I'm German, I'm the perfect prig ;-)) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
RE: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Update: procps (reviewed, 5 votes, John, Lapo, Nicholas, Robert and me, discussion needed) doxygen (reviewed, 3 votes, Lapo and Robert, package cleanup needed(?)) astyle (reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo, package cleanup needed)) Btw., I'm under the impression that bookkeeping as above could be useful. Shall I try keep that going? If so, does anybody volunteer to continue that while I'm on vacation in October? Would it be a good idea to setup something like Bugzilla where a [ITP] subject could be voted on? That would keed track of yay's and nays :) Just a thought... 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: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote: astyle (reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo, package cleanup needed)) I also vote for astyle - i forgot to mention it in the previous post. Btw., I'm under the impression that bookkeeping as above could be useful. I like the idea and you have my vote for it. Shall I try keep that going? If so, does anybody volunteer to continue that while I'm on vacation in October? I'll do that.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:12:00PM +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Corinna Vinschen wrote: astyle (reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo, package cleanup needed)) I also vote for astyle - i forgot to mention it in the previous post. Btw., I'm under the impression that bookkeeping as above could be useful. I like the idea and you have my vote for it. Shall I try keep that going? If so, does anybody volunteer to continue that while I'm on vacation in October? I'll do that. Jippeeeh! Ok, latest update: procps (reviewed, 5 votes, John, Lapo, Nicholas, Robert and me, discussion needed) doxygen (reviewed, 4 votes, Joshua, Lapo, Nicholas and Robert, package cleanup needed(?)) astyle (reviewed, 3 votes, Gareth, Lapo and Pavel, package cleanup needed) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
RE: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
...where are all the subscribers of this list? How should we ever get enough positive votes for a package if nobody cares? ...and... Please note, *all* maintainers are welcome to give his/her voice for a new package. What about non-maintainers? I'd be perfectly happy to try out packages (I've used doxygen before, and ELFIO just looks neat.) I've not done so in the past because I didn't think that my vote would be considered, and I'm not really sure what I would need to do in order to give a worthwhile evaluation (just install the binary package run? Check on install locations? Look for missing files? Run a test suite? Try to build from source?) If you are willing to count votes from non-maintainers, then some guidelines for how to do an evaluation would be useful. A fairly simple and straightforward checklist to follow would probably be enough for most folks to work off of. -Samrobb
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
Morrison, John wrote: From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Update: procps (reviewed, 5 votes, John, Lapo, Nicholas, Robert and me, discussion needed) doxygen (reviewed, 3 votes, Lapo and Robert, package cleanup needed(?)) astyle (reviewed, 2 votes, Gareth and Lapo, package cleanup needed)) Btw., I'm under the impression that bookkeeping as above could be useful. Shall I try keep that going? If so, does anybody volunteer to continue that while I'm on vacation in October? Would it be a good idea to setup something like Bugzilla where a [ITP] subject could be voted on? That would keed track of yay's and nays :) Just a thought... Well since RedHat already has bugzilla server setup, I think this is an excellent idea!!! In addition to the voting deal, we could finally have a centralized source for bug-reporting that queries reporterss for relevant information. I think it would also be quite useful to keep track of pending patches so they don't slip between the cracks. Cheers, Nicholas
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:19:00AM -0400, Robb, Sam wrote: ...where are all the subscribers of this list? How should we ever get enough positive votes for a package if nobody cares? ...and... Please note, *all* maintainers are welcome to give his/her voice for a new package. What about non-maintainers? I'd be perfectly happy to try out packages (I've used doxygen before, and ELFIO just looks neat.) I've not done so in the past because I didn't think that my vote would be considered, and I'm not really sure what I would need to do in order to give a worthwhile evaluation (just install the binary package run? Check on install locations? Look for missing files? Run a test suite? Try to build from source?) If you are willing to count votes from non-maintainers, then some guidelines for how to do an evaluation would be useful. A fairly simple and straightforward checklist to follow would probably be enough for most folks to work off of. I don't think it's that big a deal. Just have a look on http://cygwin.com/setup.html. This page contains the guidelines to create a package. Now *just* turn around and look from the evaluators side. So, if you think the package follows the guidelines and, that's obviously even better, you also tried the package and it works fine, then your voice is as good as anybody elses voice. And, if you find a useful package, who knows? Perhaps you are willing to become Cygwin package maintainer, too... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:05:42AM +, Gareth Pearce wrote: Hi, Here is one more package, astyle. http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/astyle -package.tar.gz http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-SanJose/5153/cygwin-package/doxyge n-package.tar.gz Sorry, my web server refused bz2 extension. Please extract and check. Oops - emailed offlist by mistake last time. Just a pro-vote - for both - not that i have had a chance to check them for quality... Why not? ummm because I am a busy boy? :P - barely get a few minutes spare at all these days, let alone next to my cygwin computer. However, I have used both programs on linux and found them quite useful, so I wasnt about to let them disapear into no-vote-land. Gareth
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:14:46PM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote: Just a pro-vote - for both - not that i have had a chance to check them for quality... Corinna says: Why not? ummm because I am a busy boy? :P - barely get a few minutes spare at all these days, let alone next to my cygwin computer. Maybe we need to change the approval process so that people actually have to try the package before saying Aye. cgf
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:14:46PM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote: Just a pro-vote - for both - not that i have had a chance to check them for quality... Corinna says: Why not? ummm because I am a busy boy? :P - barely get a few minutes spare at all these days, let alone next to my cygwin computer. Maybe we need to change the approval process so that people actually have to try the package before saying Aye. I agree, even though in the past I've been one of those who've done this. I can see where the breakdown lies. It seems that since Chuck left for vacation that no one takes on looking at a package. The other method would be to put the package in test mode, announce the test version of the new package, and let the users give their opinion. I think I like this even better. Earnie.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
Earnie Boyd wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:14:46PM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote: Just a pro-vote - for both - not that i have had a chance to check them for quality... Corinna says: Why not? ummm because I am a busy boy? :P - barely get a few minutes spare at all these days, let alone next to my cygwin computer. Maybe we need to change the approval process so that people actually have to try the package before saying Aye. I agree, even though in the past I've been one of those who've done this. I can see where the breakdown lies. It seems that since Chuck left for vacation that no one takes on looking at a package. [...] Speak for yourself... Cheers, Nicholas
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:27:05PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote: I agree, even though in the past I've been one of those who've done this. I can see where the breakdown lies. It seems that since Chuck left for vacation that no one takes on looking at a package. [...] Speak for yourself... I was actually going to chime in here and say nobody besides Nicholas. :-) Ok, nobody besides Nicholas, but I've seen much proding from Corinna and that is what I was mainly eluding to. Earnie.
Re: And one more package, astyle Re: New Package: doxygen-1.2.17
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:14:46PM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote: Just a pro-vote - for both - not that i have had a chance to check them for quality... Corinna says: Why not? ummm because I am a busy boy? :P - barely get a few minutes spare at all these days, let alone next to my cygwin computer. Maybe we need to change the approval process so that people actually have to try the package before saying Aye. Hmmm I was under the impression that for a package to be accepted it needed a) - someone to check it for packaging. b) - at least 3 votes saying that it is desired to be seen in the distribution. which so long as person in a) is competant - seems fine to me. Gareth _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
