Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Volker Quetschke wrote: | http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/setup.hint | http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.4-1.tar.bz2 | http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.4-1-src.tar.bz2 version: 1.2.4-1 install: release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.4-1.tar.bz2 1069953 3dbda86bf20b3965e70e2d6bab47f3c9 source: release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.4-1-src.tar.bz2 2419600 4de8131f05fc2c7b53a58b2c49bdc44c [prev] version: 1.2.2-3 install: release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.2-3.tar.bz2 985280 dd913d7652807e0b72c1229bd5ad282f source: release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.2-3-src.tar.bz2 3261728 100770ae4a9b443108902e373ccee55a Oh, quite a decrease, in binary file size! 0_o - -- L a p o L u c h i n i l a p o @ l a p o . i t w w w . l a p o . i t / http://www.megatokyo.it -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkA8vNwACgkQaJiCLMjyUvsLJACgm8sMyFsNMmh/JCkq/gcXHdi0 43kAn1tAZD8wfwsW3vU0N5PExOcg+Q99 =hsP9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
Hmm, I had the 1.2.4 version ready for a while, but forgot to mention it. I was asked for the links, here they are: Changes since version 1.2.2-3: * New upstream version NOTES - You find build instructions for a windows native executable (MinGW) after unpacking the source (see gnupg.README for details) in: /usr/src/gnupg-1.2.4-X/CYGWIN-PATCHES/gnupg.MinGW.README The source package contains the original's package detached gpg signature of the author and detached signatures of the patch file and the build/packaging script signed by me. Here are the URLs: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/setup.hint http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.4-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/release/gnupg/gnupg-1.2.4-1-src.tar.bz2 Volker -- PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
Volker Quetschke wrote: Hmm, I had the 1.2.4 version ready for a while, but forgot to mention it. Now it's too late. Anyone here with a bit web/ftp space to host the cygwin package? (Preferably in europe?) Volker (Former cygwin gnupg mainainer) Feel free to post the links or to email me the packages and the setup.hint file. For some time, I can put them on a server in Germany. Andreas. (Almost future cygwin ccrypt maintainer)
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
Volker Quetschke wrote: Now it's too late. Anyone here with a bit web/ftp space to host the cygwin package? (Preferably in europe?) I guess the nice guts at gnupg.org would be happy to host a /cygwin/ directory in their FTP and put in the web page: cygwin users out there can just add this source to they setup.exe to continue use gnupg (of course we'd have to create setup.ini also, but that is not a problem at all, for a single package...) Anyway, I guess we're a bit OT here, now... =( BTW: if you could also send me the source package by email I'd like to install it ;-) -- L a p o L u c h i n i l a p o @ l a p o . i t w w w . l a p o . i t / http://www.megatokyo.it
RE: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
Christopher Faylor wrote on Monday, February 23, 2004 12:38 AM: Hmm. I guess I haven't been as diligent as I should have been. I've pulled gnupg from the distribution. Wouldn't this be a candidate for a source only distrubution with a postbuild script that complies and installs the package ? Regards, Jörg
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
Andreas Seidl schrieb: Volker Quetschke wrote: Now it's too late. Anyone here with a bit web/ftp space to host the cygwin package? (Preferably in europe?) Feel free to post the links or to email me the packages and the setup.hint file. For some time, I can put them on a server in Germany. And please the zip und unzip packages with en-/decryption also. I also have enough space available. (disabled anonymous FTP, HTTP only) -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
RE: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Jörg Schaible wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote on Monday, February 23, 2004 12:38 AM: Hmm. I guess I haven't been as diligent as I should have been. I've pulled gnupg from the distribution. Wouldn't this be a candidate for a source only distrubution with a postbuild script that complies and installs the package ? Regards, Jörg FWIW, that's basically what I was thinking about in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00233.html. 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: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
Igor Pechtchanski wrote on Monday, February 23, 2004 2:29 PM: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Jörg Schaible wrote: Wouldn't this be a candidate for a source only distrubution with a postbuild script that complies and installs the package ? Regards, Jörg FWIW, that's basically what I was thinking about in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004- 02/msg00233.html. Igor Welcome to Gentoo :)
Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
Lapo wrote: Daniel Reed wrote: | Package: ccrypt 1.6-2 [2004-01-20] | Description: A utility for encrypting and decrypting files and streams |Proposer: Andreas Seidl |Proposal: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-01/msg00112.html |Release directory (for use with setup.exe): | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/ | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/release/ccrypt/ccrypt-1.6-2.tar.bz2 | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/release/ccrypt/ccrypt-1.6-2-src.tar.bz2 | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/release/ccrypt/setup.hint | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. |HOLD-UPS: No good to go review. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00288.html + http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg8.html I don't think we really need some emacs expert to check those .el and .elc files before accepting it? As written in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg9.html I tried it and they worked; to my understanding, there can't / needn't be done more. However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the ccrypt package? Andreas.
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote: However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the ccrypt package? You're right. There are. That means this package is removed from consideration. Sorry. cgf
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
cgf wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote: However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the ccrypt package? Andreas, Next time, please keep it to yourself. Cheers, Nicholas
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:27:06PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: cgf wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote: However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the ccrypt package? Next time, please keep it to yourself. I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy it if Red Hat was taken to task for something that could have been caught early, decided that cygwin wasn't worth the hassle, and pulled it from sources.redhat.com. But, hey, thanks for clarifying just whom I can trust to be watching out for the project's interests.
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:27:06PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote:
However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html
I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the ccrypt
package?
Next time, please keep it to yourself.
I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy it if Red Hat was taken to task for
something that could have been caught early, decided that cygwin wasn't
worth the hassle, and pulled it from sources.redhat.com.
No, I wouldn't, but I didn't intend on that being the only statement.
Consider this: The gpg which we distribute contains the *exact* same
cipher, AES{128,192,256}, as ccrypt plus gpg also has twofish
blowfish. The last time I checked, those two were also considered
strong encryption ciphers. Moreover, gpg can be used encrypt and
decrypt streams like ccrypt so, in a sense, they share similar
functionality. That's where I see the disconnect. Does this mean we
should ditch gpg as well or distribute a version with 128bit ciphers?
Frankly, I don't see why we should disqualified ccrypt because someone
thinks it might be a problem. Is it *really* a problem?
By his standard, RedHat has been breaking the law for years now, which
leads me to conclude that either:
A)The authorities don't care.
B)Red Hat doesn't care.
or
C)RedHat already has filed the necessary paperwork to allow it to
distribute binaries with strong encryption.
But, hey, thanks for clarifying just whom I can trust to be watching out
for the project's interests.
Hey, you certainly have a right to your opinion. The reality is that I
was trying to paste some text and accidentally sent that message before
it was complete. This reply contains some of the arguments I was
planning on including in that message to debunk his theory. Oh well,
that's all water under the bridge, believe what you want to believe...
I suppose I'll never get a gold star now ;-).
Cheers,
Nicholas
[1] The output of `gpg --help`:
Supported algorithms:
Pubkey: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA, ELG
Cipher: 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH
Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256
Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:53:47PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 04:27:06PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:39:49PM +0100, Andreas Seidl wrote:
However, a new problem might have popped up. Reading this thread
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-02/msg01103.html
I wonder if there are legal problems for RedHat to distribute the
ccrypt package?
Next time, please keep it to yourself.
I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy it if Red Hat was taken to task for
something that could have been caught early, decided that cygwin wasn't
worth the hassle, and pulled it from sources.redhat.com.
No, I wouldn't, but I didn't intend on that being the only statement.
Consider this: The gpg which we distribute contains the *exact* same
cipher, AES{128,192,256}, as ccrypt plus gpg also has twofish
blowfish.
The last time I checked, those two were also considered
strong encryption ciphers. Moreover, gpg can be used encrypt and
decrypt streams like ccrypt so, in a sense, they share similar
functionality. That's where I see the disconnect. Does this mean we
should ditch gpg as well or distribute a version with 128bit ciphers?
Frankly, I don't see why we should disqualified ccrypt because someone
thinks it might be a problem. Is it *really* a problem?
By his standard, RedHat has been breaking the law for years now, which
leads me to conclude that either:
A)The authorities don't care.
B)Red Hat doesn't care.
or
C)RedHat already has filed the necessary paperwork to allow it to
distribute binaries with strong encryption.
Hmm. I guess I haven't been as diligent as I should have been. I've
pulled gnupg from the distribution.
But, hey, thanks for clarifying just whom I can trust to be watching out
for the project's interests.
Hey, you certainly have a right to your opinion. The reality is that I
was trying to paste some text and accidentally sent that message before
it was complete.
Yeah, isn't that always a convenient excuse?
This reply contains some of the arguments I was planning on including
in that message to debunk his theory. Oh well, that's all water under
the bridge, believe what you want to believe... I suppose I'll never
get a gold star now ;-).
Thanks. I will certainly believe what i want to believe. I'd have a
hard time not doing that, in fact.
cgf
Re: Possible legal problem with ccrypt? [Was: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13]
No, I wouldn't, but I didn't intend on that being the only statement.
Consider this: The gpg which we distribute contains the *exact* same
cipher, AES{128,192,256}, as ccrypt plus gpg also has twofish
blowfish.
The last time I checked, those two were also considered
strong encryption ciphers. Moreover, gpg can be used encrypt and
decrypt streams like ccrypt so, in a sense, they share similar
functionality. That's where I see the disconnect. Does this mean we
should ditch gpg as well or distribute a version with 128bit ciphers?
Frankly, I don't see why we should disqualified ccrypt because someone
thinks it might be a problem. Is it *really* a problem?
By his standard, RedHat has been breaking the law for years now, which
leads me to conclude that either:
A)The authorities don't care.
B)Red Hat doesn't care.
or
C)RedHat already has filed the necessary paperwork to allow it to
distribute binaries with strong encryption.
Hmm. I guess I haven't been as diligent as I should have been. I've
pulled gnupg from the distribution.
Hmm, I had the 1.2.4 version ready for a while, but forgot to mention
it.
Now it's too late. Anyone here with a bit web/ftp space to host the
cygwin package? (Preferably in europe?)
Volker
(Former cygwin gnupg mainainer)
--
PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B082 A3E9 F913 9E53 3D35 C9BA 9F8A 785D
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Reed wrote: | Package: ccrypt 1.6-2 [2004-01-20] | Description: A utility for encrypting and decrypting files and streams |Proposer: Andreas Seidl |Proposal: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-01/msg00112.html |Release directory (for use with setup.exe): | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/ | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/release/ccrypt/ccrypt-1.6-2.tar.bz2 | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/release/ccrypt/ccrypt-1.6-2-src.tar.bz2 | http://alice.fmi.uni-passau.de/~seidl/cygwin/release/ccrypt/setup.hint | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. |HOLD-UPS: No good to go review. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00288.html + http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg8.html I don't think we really need some emacs expert to check those .el and .elc files before accepting it? - -- L a p o L u c h i n i l a p o @ l a p o . i t w w w . l a p o . i t / http://www.megatokyo.it -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkA1xsEACgkQaJiCLMjyUvszqgCg1wDHboG01Rxdxqtum1eLYMAx 7zcAoLpgwnPc37DcpI7ROKnCLwb5kCYu =lqWF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13
* 2004-02-13 Daniel Reed nmlorg AT cygwin.com list.cygwin-apps * Message-Id: 20040213170003.12333.qmail AT sources.redhat.com | Package: ploticus 2.11-1 [2003-09-15] | Description: Command line driven tool to generates various plots and graphs |Proposer: Jari Aalto |Proposal: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00165.html | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/ploticus/ploticus-2.11-1.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/ploticus/ploticus-2.11-1-src.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/ploticus/setup.hint |Problems: 21943873id2602085 /usr/doc needs to be /usr/share/doc | 21943873id2602090 No runtime requirement on zlib | 21943873id2602094 Binary needs to be recompiled because there's no longer a libz.dll that it cannot load. | 21943873id2602100 No man pages, source does come with manpages so they should be installed. | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. |HOLD-UPS: Unresolved problems. No good to go review. | | Latest 2.20 (and 2.11) release won't build with current GD included in Cygwin. I'm investigating this and have contacted upstream author. | Package: sgrep 1.92.1-1 [2003-09-15] | Description: Search indexed text regions like SGML, XML and HTML files |Proposer: Jari Aalto |Proposal: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00166.html | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/sgrep/sgrep-1.92.1-1.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/sgrep/sgrep-1.92.1-1-src.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/sgrep/setup.hint | Good to go: Rafael Kitover | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. Reviewed. |HOLD-UPS: repackaged mkdir sgrep ; cd sgrep wget -q -O - http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/sgrep/get.sh | sh | | Package: rdesktop 1.3.0-1 [2003-11-08] | Description: client for Windows terminal server. Remote desktop display |Proposer: Jari Aalto |Proposal: mailto:cygwin-apps-thread.12041 AT cygwin.com | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/rdesktop/rdesktop-1.3.0-1.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/rdesktop/rdesktop-1.3.0-1-src.tar.bz2 | [no hint] |Problems: 21943873id2602265 then, the installation don't add the man page because extract the rdesktop.1 in /usr/share/man1. the right place is /usr/share/man/man1 | 21943873id2602271 Source problems: See cygwin-apps-get.12303 | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. |HOLD-UPS: Unresolved problems. No good to go review. Problems fixed and repackaged mkdir rdesktop ; cd rdesktop wget -q -O - http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/rdesktop/get.sh | sh | Package: joe 2.9.8-1 [2003-11-11] | Description: Fast and simple editor which emulates 5 other editors |Proposer: Jari Aalto |Proposal: mailto:cygwin-apps-thread.12060 AT cygwin.com | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/joe/joe-2.9.8-1.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/joe/joe-2.9.8-1-src.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/joe/setup.hint | Good to go: Gerrit P. Haase | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. Reviewed. |HOLD-UPS: repackaged mkdir boxes ; cd boxes wget -q -O - http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/get.sh | sh | | Package: boxes 2000.0401-1 [2004-01-29] | Description: Text filter which can draw any kind of ASCII art box around its input text. |Proposer: Jari Aalto |Proposal: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-01/msg00246.html | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/boxes-2000.0401-1.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/boxes-2000.0401-1-src.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/setup.hint |Problems: 21943873id2594723 The README reports the package version as 1.0.1. | 21943873id2594728 Running the boxes.exe executable results in a boxes: Can't find config file. message. Looks like it expects the config file in /usr/local/share/boxes. | 21943873id2594734 The man page has a --GLOBALCONF-- string for the system-wide config file name -- should that have been replaced by something like /usr/share/boxes/boxes.cfg? | 21943873id2594742 Source problems: See cygwin-apps-get.13000 | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. |HOLD-UPS: Unresolved problems. No good to go review. | Problems fixed and repackaged. mkdir boxes ; cd boxes wget -q -O - http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/get.sh | sh | Package: gnuchess 5.07-1 [2004-02-09] | Description: Play chess against computer opponent |Proposer: Jari Aalto |Proposal: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00068.html | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/gnuchess/gnuchess-5.07-1.tar.bz2 |
[Review - no go] boxes (Was Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13)
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote: * 2004-02-13 Daniel Reed nmlorg AT cygwin.com list.cygwin-apps | Package: joe 2.9.8-1 [2003-11-11] | Description: Fast and simple editor which emulates 5 other editors | [snip] | Good to go: Gerrit P. Haase | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. Reviewed. |HOLD-UPS: repackaged mkdir boxes ; cd boxes wget -q -O - http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/get.sh | sh BTW, should this be s/boxes/joe/g? | Package: boxes 2000.0401-1 [2004-01-29] | Description: Text filter which can draw any kind of ASCII art box around its input text. |Proposer: Jari Aalto |Proposal: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-01/msg00246.html | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/boxes-2000.0401-1.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/boxes-2000.0401-1-src.tar.bz2 | http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/setup.hint |Problems: 21943873id2594723 The README reports the package version as 1.0.1. | 21943873id2594728 Running the boxes.exe executable results in a boxes: Can't find config file. message. Looks like it expects the config file in /usr/local/share/boxes. | 21943873id2594734 The man page has a --GLOBALCONF-- string for the system-wide config file name -- should that have been replaced by something like /usr/share/boxes/boxes.cfg? | 21943873id2594742 Source problems: See cygwin-apps-get.13000 | Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. |HOLD-UPS: Unresolved problems. No good to go review. Problems fixed and repackaged. mkdir boxes ; cd boxes wget -q -O - http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/get.sh | sh Ok, here's a second review. Problems (and nits) outlined below: setup.hint: 1) ldesc has leftover hyphenation (pro- gramming), and is all on one line. Binary package: 2) The man page reports This is boxes version --BVERSION--., and still has the --GLOBALCONF-- string. Something wrong with macro substitution, perhaps? 3) The Cygwin-specific readme still indicates 1.3.22 as the minimum Cygwin version. Otherwise the binary package looks good. Now for the source package: -- patch 4) The patch contains boxes.README and boxes.README.b (the latter being the old version of the README, AFAICS). 5) The patch to the Makefile changes the value of GLOBALCONF, but there's a build.sh script in the patch that explicitly passes GLOBALCONF to make. That's overkill, IMO -- the build.sh script isn't necessary for this. 6) Is there a reason you remove boxes.1 (a generated file) via patch? This is where build.sh can come in handy (and make the patch smaller ;-). 7) There's a typo in the patch for src/Makefile: +exec_prefix = $(refix). Frankly, I don't see how this ever built correctly... -- script 8) The script will put the build files in /usr/src/cygwin-packages. I do NOT want any script to muck with my /usr/src unless I run it from there. The package build should be contained under the current directory. 9) The build produces some warnings (mostly implicit declaration -- missing headers?). 10) Looking at the output, the script excludes generated files from the patch, but, apparently, doesn't pick up boxes.1 as a generated file... This could explain 6) above. 11) The usr/share/man, usr/share/doc/boxes-2401, and usr/share/boxes directories (and their subdirectories) end up as non-executable in the binary tarball created by the script (wrong flags to install?). 12) The build doesn't happen in boxes-2401/.build, it happens directly in boxes-2401... 13) The script leaves the boxes-2401 directory behind... Don't know if it should be expected to clean it up, though... Some of the above are nits, but some (like the build script using /usr/src) are serious. 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, 2004-02-13
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Daniel Reed wrote:
This is the list of pending packages as of Friday, February 13, 2004.
Oh, yeah, Friday the 13th... Is that, perhaps, why my comments from
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00084.html didn't make it
in? ;-)
Let's try this again:
[snip]
Waiting for review: ploticus tclcl rdesktop rxp dx emacro dhcp tree \
elinks sgml-base ccrypt boxes apache gnuchess xboard
Most of the packages above have been reviewed:
- ploticus: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00028.html
- tclcl: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00036.html
- rxp: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00042.html
- dx: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00097.html
- emacro: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00050.html
- dhcp: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00045.html
- tree: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00265.html
- sgml-base: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00047.html
- and it may have been pulled by the original proposer
- ccrypt: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00288.html
- boxes: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-01/msg00261.html
apache is an update of an existing package - does it need a review or
votes?
Waiting for vote[s]: otcl dx emacro XmHTML TeXmacs apache xboard (GAP) (ns)
^^ ^^^
I believe I voted for the three packages above... This should bring the
number of votes for otcl and TeXmacs to 3.
The packages below have no hold-ups. What's holding them up? ;-)
Package: sgrep 1.92.1-1 [2003-09-15]
Package: joe 2.9.8-1 [2003-11-11]
Package: aspell-de 0.50.2-1 [2004-01-30]
Package: aspell-pl 0.50.2-1 [2004-01-30]
BTW, the last two above are dictionaries for an existing package -- should
they need votes? Is there a way to mark them as vote-exempt, but still
needing reviews?
Package: otcl 1.0.9-1 [2003-10-29]
Package: TeXmacs 1.0.3.2-2 [2004-02-01]
These now have 3 votes each (counting mine), and they have no other
hold-ups.
Package: xboard 4.2.7-1 [2004-02-09]
Description: Graphical user interface for chess
Aye votes: Yaakov Selkowitz [1/3]
Gareth Pearce [2/3]
HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 1 more). No good to go review.
I thought I voted for this, but guess not... This now has my vote
(bringing the total to 3).
ITP: tetrix [2003-09-10]
Description: ESR's curses-based version of Tetris
HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review!
ITP: graphviz [2003-09-25]
Description: Open source graph drawing software
HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review!
ITP: subversion 0.30-1 [2003-10-03]
Description: Client for Subversion revision control system
HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review!
ITP: GAP [2003-10-06]
Description: a famous group manipulation package
HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review!
ITP: ns [2003-10-18]
Description: The Network Simulator - ns-2
HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review!
These have been on the PPL for ages with no activity. Should there be a
timeout?
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, 2004-02-13
Package: sgrep 1.92.1-1 [2003-09-15] Package: joe 2.9.8-1 [2003-11-11] Package: aspell-de 0.50.2-1 [2004-01-30] Package: aspell-pl 0.50.2-1 [2004-01-30] BTW, the last two above are dictionaries for an existing package -- should they need votes? Is there a way to mark them as vote-exempt, but still needing reviews? The last 2 also actually have all their votes and have been reviewed, only hold up with that was discussion about internal versioning not matching external versioning in some places. ITP: tetrix [2003-09-10] Description: ESR's curses-based version of Tetris HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review! ITP: graphviz [2003-09-25] Description: Open source graph drawing software HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review! ITP: subversion 0.30-1 [2003-10-03] Description: Client for Subversion revision control system HOLD-UPS: No package, nothing to review! ITP: GAP [2003-10-06] Description: a famous group manipulation package HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review! ITP: ns [2003-10-18] Description: The Network Simulator - ns-2 HOLD-UPS: Not enough votes (need 3). No package, nothing to review! These have been on the PPL for ages with no activity. Should there be a timeout? Perhaps ones which don't get enough votes should time out, but ones which obtain the required votes before there is even a package, probably should be left in a 'wanted' list - perhaps after a timeout drop the listing of having someone who submitted the idea. I still do intend to package graphviz just waiting for an appropriate amount of time to spend on it. Gareth Pearce PS yes, I changed emails.
Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-02-13
--- Igor Pechtchanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - sgml-base: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-02/msg00047.html - and it may have been pulled by the original proposer Yes, let's pull this off the propsed package list. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
