Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:43:37PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:14:46PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:30:32AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du: This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003. Package: d 1.2.0-1 Description: The Directory Lister Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). How much ITPs where seen without a real interest or ability from the maintainer tobe? This one is not one of these, I like this tool, that was the reason I was voting, even if I wouldn't use it, I think it is nice to have an alternative to 'ls', maybe other people think similar and want to give it a try? The most packages are really needed to develop applications and to maintain packages, but OTOH Cygwin should respect the users who just want to use it as their favourite system to drive the Windows subsystem, so give them tools to use this system. Want to say, vote if you don't think it is a really bad idea to have some alternative directory lister (questions like: who needs it when we have ls? are well known, but these answers are not a veto!). I agree that diversity is a Good Thing. I also agree that it may be a good idea to introduce such diversity (more of it) into the Cygwin Net distribution Have we already talked about why this package is better than 'ls'? If it is just another directory lister with different options then I don't see a need for it. Also, if it isn't part of any other linux or unix distribution then it doesn't really fit into the core goal for cygwin. Anyway, I'm not going to veto this, but I am going to register a -1 vote until this is clarified. If it has already been discussed then I apologize. I haven't been following closely. I don't think it's been discussed on-list, but the reason I voted for it despite me not going to use it because I like ls enough as is, is that it actually does add some functionalities - most notably the fact that it wastes less space in the output than ls does (which I agree can come in handy), it lists directories first (which is increases visibility of the directory contents) and gives a very clear summary of the directory contents. Personally, I'm no fan of ls any more than I am of this lister: I just happen to know ls an be used to it. I can see how the features added by this lister can be interesting to other users, and I think that that, in itself, is enough reason to vote for a package that has a willing maintainer and is relatively well-written (taken a look at the code). rlc -- Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. -- D. Gries
Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:30:32AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du: This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003. Package: d 1.2.0-1 Description: The Directory Lister Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). How much ITPs where seen without a real interest or ability from the maintainer tobe? This one is not one of these, I like this tool, that was the reason I was voting, even if I wouldn't use it, I think it is nice to have an alternative to 'ls', maybe other people think similar and want to give it a try? The most packages are really needed to develop applications and to maintain packages, but OTOH Cygwin should respect the users who just want to use it as their favourite system to drive the Windows subsystem, so give them tools to use this system. Want to say, vote if you don't think it is a really bad idea to have some alternative directory lister (questions like: who needs it when we have ls? are well known, but these answers are not a veto!). I agree that diversity is a Good Thing. I also agree that it may be a good idea to introduce such diversity (more of it) into the Cygwin Net distribution I've now read the info file that comes with the package and tested it on my system. I don't think I'll use it often, but I don't think it's a bad idea to put it in the net distribution either. You've convinced me, I'm in a good mood or whatever - this has my vote. rlc -- Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.
Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:14:46PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:30:32AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du: This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003. Package: d 1.2.0-1 Description: The Directory Lister Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). How much ITPs where seen without a real interest or ability from the maintainer tobe? This one is not one of these, I like this tool, that was the reason I was voting, even if I wouldn't use it, I think it is nice to have an alternative to 'ls', maybe other people think similar and want to give it a try? The most packages are really needed to develop applications and to maintain packages, but OTOH Cygwin should respect the users who just want to use it as their favourite system to drive the Windows subsystem, so give them tools to use this system. Want to say, vote if you don't think it is a really bad idea to have some alternative directory lister (questions like: who needs it when we have ls? are well known, but these answers are not a veto!). I agree that diversity is a Good Thing. I also agree that it may be a good idea to introduce such diversity (more of it) into the Cygwin Net distribution Have we already talked about why this package is better than 'ls'? If it is just another directory lister with different options then I don't see a need for it. Also, if it isn't part of any other linux or unix distribution then it doesn't really fit into the core goal for cygwin. Anyway, I'm not going to veto this, but I am going to register a -1 vote until this is clarified. If it has already been discussed then I apologize. I haven't been following closely. cgf
RE: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
Did check get the votes it needs? +1. Anything to help testing and verification is great :) -Original Message- Package: check 0.8.4-1 Description: A unit test framework for C Proposer: Gerrit P. Haase Proposal: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00339.html http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/check-0.8.4-1.tar.bz2 http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/check-0.8.4-1-src.tar.gz http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/setup.hint Reviews: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak (2003-09/msg00345.html) Aye votes: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak (2003-09/msg00345.html) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). Oh girls (and boys), I need it because `make check` for libexpat depends on it, libexpat is used e.g. by XFree86 and gettext so give me a chance. I'm willing to maintain it, the review was 'ok', so what is the problem here? Why are you so picky with your voting? Look at other distributions packages list, e.g. for Suse you get the DVD with 6000 packages...
Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
Hallo Daniel, Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du: This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003. [...] Package: check 0.8.4-1 Description: A unit test framework for C Proposer: Gerrit P. Haase Proposal: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00339.html http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/check-0.8.4-1.tar.bz2 http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/check-0.8.4-1-src.tar.gz http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/setup.hint Reviews: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak (2003-09/msg00345.html) Aye votes: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak (2003-09/msg00345.html) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). Oh girls (and boys), I need it because `make check` for libexpat depends on it, libexpat is used e.g. by XFree86 and gettext so give me a chance. I'm willing to maintain it, the review was 'ok', so what is the problem here? Why are you so picky with your voting? Look at other distributions packages list, e.g. for Suse you get the DVD with 6000 packages... Package: d 1.2.0-1 Description: The Directory Lister Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/d-1.2.0-1.tar.bz2 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/d-1.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/setup.hint Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). How much ITPs where seen without a real interest or ability from the maintainer tobe? This one is not one of these, I like this tool, that was the reason I was voting, even if I wouldn't use it, I think it is nice to have an alternative to 'ls', maybe other people think similar and want to give it a try? The most packages are really needed to develop applications and to maintain packages, but OTOH Cygwin should respect the users who just want to use it as their favourite system to drive the Windows subsystem, so give them tools to use this system. Want to say, vote if you don't think it is a really bad idea to have some alternative directory lister (questions like: who needs it when we have ls? are well known, but these answers are not a veto!). Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Hallo Daniel, Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du: This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003. [...] Package: check 0.8.4-1 Description: A unit test framework for C Proposer: Gerrit P. Haase Proposal: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00339.html http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/check-0.8.4-1.tar.bz2 http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/check-0.8.4-1-src.tar.gz http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/check/setup.hint Reviews: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak (2003-09/msg00345.html) Aye votes: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak (2003-09/msg00345.html) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). Oh girls (and boys), I need it because `make check` for libexpat depends on it, libexpat is used e.g. by XFree86 and gettext so give me a chance. I'm willing to maintain it, the review was 'ok', so what is the problem here? Why are you so picky with your voting? Look at other distributions packages list, e.g. for Suse you get the DVD with 6000 packages... Ok, you've convinced me. This has my vote. Package: d 1.2.0-1 Description: The Directory Lister Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/d-1.2.0-1.tar.bz2 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/d-1.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/setup.hint Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). How much ITPs where seen without a real interest or ability from the maintainer tobe? This one is not one of these, I like this tool, that was the reason I was voting, even if I wouldn't use it, I think it is nice to have an alternative to 'ls', maybe other people think similar and want to give it a try? The most packages are really needed to develop applications and to maintain packages, but OTOH Cygwin should respect the users who just want to use it as their favourite system to drive the Windows subsystem, so give them tools to use this system. Want to say, vote if you don't think it is a really bad idea to have some alternative directory lister (questions like: who needs it when we have ls? are well known, but these answers are not a veto!). Gerrit I wanted to vote for this, but I wasn't sure just how useful this would be for people coming in from the Unix world and being familiar with ls... Then I had an idea -- if Yaakov could provide either a wrapper script or an example alias that would redirect ls -l to this application, it would make it much more useful, i.e., you install it and get an alias you can use in your shell (from /etc/profile.d/d.sh, for example -- just don't forget that it'll be invoked for ash as well, which doesn't understand aliases). I'll try to come up with something of this sort when I have the time. Once I do, this will have my vote (not just yet, sorry). 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: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
On 2003-10-21T17:00-, Daniel Reed wrote: ) Package: libsigsegv 2.0-1 ) Description: Library for handling page faults. )Proposer: Jari Aalto )Proposal: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00238.html ) http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/libsigsegv-2.0-1.tar.bz2 ) http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/libsigsegv-2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 ) http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/setup.hint )Also: libsigsegv-devel [Library for handling page faults.] ) http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/devel/libsigsegv-devel-2.0-1.tar.bz2 ) http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/devel/setup.hint )Also: libsigsegv-doc [Library for handling page faults (Documentation).] ) http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/doc/libsigsegv-doc-2.0-1.tar.bz2 ) http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/doc/setup.hint )Problems: base package as well as the devel package contain the same files in usr/lib (cygwin-apps-get.11564) ) the package uses a too old libtool (cygwin-apps-get.11564) ) Same for the docs. Why splitting if the documentation is for developers? (cygwin-apps-get.11564) ) Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. )HOLD-UPS: Unresolved problems. Not reviewed. The libsigsegv package contains the combined content of those two sub-packages, so they appear to be redundant. Either libsigsegv should be an empty package; or one of libsigsegv-devel or libsigsegv-doc should replace libsigsegv; or both libsigsegv-devel and libsigsegv-doc should be removed and libsigsegv should remain the same. That is, libsigsegv-devel includes a header file, a static library, and the .la file for linking. None of these are necessary for the runtime of any potential dependent packages, they are just used for building. libsigsegv-doc includes the contents of usr/share/doc/libsigsegv-2.0/ and usr/share/doc/Cygwin/. libsigsegv contains all of the above. My recommendation would be to replace libsigsegv with libsigsegv-doc, since the base package is expected to include both things libsigsegv-doc includes, and to leave libsigsegv-devel standalone. When/if a shared version of libsigsegv is produced, it should accompany the documentation in the libsigsegv package. So, unless there is any objection, I am going to re-list http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/doc/libsigsegv-doc-2.0-1.tar.bz2 as libsigsegv-2.0-1 and ignore http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/libsigsegv-2.0-1.tar.bz2 entirely. If there is consensus that the whole package should be held off until it can be re-packaged to produce a dynamic library, I will hold off on uploading. Otherwise, since there appear to be people patiently holding their breath, I will go ahead and upload libsigsegv and libsigsegv-devel later today. ) Package: suite3270 3.2.20-1 ) Description: 3270 Emulator Suite )Proposer: Peter A. Castro )Also: suite3270-common [3270 Emulator Suite (common)] )Also: c3270 [3270 Emulator (Curses)] )Also: pr3287 [3287 Printer Emulator] )Also: s3270 [3270 Emulator (Scripted)] )Also: tcl3270 [3270 Emulator (Tcl)] )Also: x3270 [3270 Emulator (X-Windows)] ) Aye votes: Corinna Vinschen (2003-09/msg00341.html) [1/3] ) Status: Package available. )HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). Not reviewed. I have not heard from the original packager whether renaming these sub-packages should go through; should this be considered an unresolved problem, or should I just rename them? -- Daniel Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://naim-users.org/nmlorg/ http://naim.n.ml.org/ It is so easy to miss pretty trivial solutions to problems deemed complicated. The goal of a scientist is to find an interesting problem, and live off it for a while. The goal of an engineer is to evade interesting problems :) -- Vadim Antonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] on NANOG
Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:54:20PM -0400, Daniel Reed wrote: On 2003-10-21T17:00-, Daniel Reed wrote: ) Package: libsigsegv 2.0-1 ) Description: Library for handling page faults. )Proposer: Jari Aalto ) [...] So, unless there is any objection, I am going to re-list http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/doc/libsigsegv-doc-2.0-1.tar.bz2 as libsigsegv-2.0-1 and ignore http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/libsigsegv/libsigsegv-2.0-1.tar.bz2 entirely. If there is consensus that the whole package should be held off until it can be re-packaged to produce a dynamic library, I will hold off on uploading. I veto this package until I get at least a reply from Jari. I've send a package review on Oct-06: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-10/msg00096.html but Jari never send any correction or a reply. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
otcl, ns/nam (Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21)
ITP: ns Description: The Network Simulator - ns-2 Proposer: Harold L Hunt II ITP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Also: nam [The Network Animator - Nam] Status: ITP posted. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review! ITP: otcl Description: OTcl, short for MIT Object Tcl, is an extension to Tcl/Tk for ... Proposer: Harold L Hunt II ITP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Also: tclcl [TclCL (Tcl with classes) is a Tcl/C++ interface used by Mash, vic, vat, ...] Status: ITP posted. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review! otcl is turning out to be a nightmare. It isn't libtoolized, it uses ridiculous hard-coded checks, for example for libXext.a (we use libXext.dll.a), and it requires source files from tcl in order to be built. It also can't be built in a directory other than the source directory (though I usually use lndir for packages that are broken in this way). I am a little leary of distributing it as an independent package. Do we ever do static builds of libraries that are in bad shape and only needed by one or two clients? If so, should I skip otcl and just build ns/nam against a static otcl that is not distributed? Ugh... you would think that a library with less than 100 KiB of source would take less time to package than say, lesstif, but you would be wrong :) I would appreciate any pointers, Harold
Re: otcl, ns/nam (Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21)
Hallo Harold, Am Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2003 um 22:11 schriebst du: ITP: ns Description: The Network Simulator - ns-2 Proposer: Harold L Hunt II ITP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Also: nam [The Network Animator - Nam] Status: ITP posted. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review! ITP: otcl Description: OTcl, short for MIT Object Tcl, is an extension to Tcl/Tk for ... Proposer: Harold L Hunt II ITP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Also: tclcl [TclCL (Tcl with classes) is a Tcl/C++ interface used by Mash, vic, vat, ...] Status: ITP posted. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review! otcl is turning out to be a nightmare. It isn't libtoolized, it uses ridiculous hard-coded checks, for example for libXext.a (we use libXext.dll.a), and it requires source files from tcl in order to be built. It also can't be built in a directory other than the source directory (though I usually use lndir for packages that are broken in this way). I am a little leary of distributing it as an independent package. Do we ever do static builds of libraries that are in bad shape and only needed by one or two clients? If so, should I skip otcl and just build ns/nam against a static otcl that is not distributed? Ugh... you would think that a library with less than 100 KiB of source would take less time to package than say, lesstif, but you would be wrong :) I would appreciate any pointers, At least the source needs to be distributed if the library is used, even if it only used at link time. And if you need it at link time you need to build it anyway and then you can also distribute it as a seperate package. Just include a ready to use Makefile and a patch in the source package that reflects all the changes, that should be enough IMO. Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21
Daniel Reed wrote: Package: suite3270 3.2.20-1 Description: 3270 Emulator Suite Proposer: Peter A. Castro Proposal: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00340.html http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-3.2.20-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.suite3270 Also: suite3270-common [3270 Emulator Suite (common)] http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/suite3270-common-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.suite3270-common Also: c3270 [3270 Emulator (Curses)] http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/c3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.c3270 Also: pr3287 [3287 Printer Emulator] http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/pr3287-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.pr3287 Also: s3270 [3270 Emulator (Scripted)] http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/s3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.s3270 Also: tcl3270 [3270 Emulator (Tcl)] http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/tcl3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.tcl3270 Also: x3270 [3270 Emulator (X-Windows)] http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/x3270-3.2.20-1.tar.bz2 http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.x3270 Aye votes: Corinna Vinschen (2003-09/msg00341.html) [1/3] Status: Package available. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). Not reviewed. There was a suggestion that the individual packages be renamed so that they appear together (in setup.hint, in the setup chooser, etc etc). e.g. suite3270-common, suite3270-curses, suite3270-printer, suite3270-tcl, suite3270-x11, suite3270-scripted(?) FWIW, this gets my vote -- but I agree with the rename suggestion. Package: d 1.2.0-1 Description: The Directory Lister Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/d-1.2.0-1.tar.bz2 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/d-1.2.0-1-src.tar.bz2 http://mywebpage.netscape.com/yselkowitz/cygwin/d/setup.hint Reviews: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) Aye votes: Gerrit P. Haase (cygwin-apps-get.11476) [1/3] Status: Package available. Reviewed. HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 2 more). 1 pro vote from me... I'll try to review a few packages over the next couple of days (but don't let that stop anybody else in the meantime!) -- Chuck
