Re: new package proposal : CLISP
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 11:03:36AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: built against 1.5.3: ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/setup.hint I think I fixed all concerns with the binary package and most concerns with the source one. I would greatly appreciate it if someone took over this package maintenance. I am the upstream maintainer and I have quite enough on my plate with that. thanks. Uploaded. Please announce on cygwin-announce as described on http://cygwin.com/setup.html. Still looking for a maintainer? Actually it's not that hard. Just keep an eye on the cygwin mailing list. I honestly doubt that you'll get more than 1 or 2 questions about clisp per week on that list. Well... except it has really serious problems in which case you'll be glad to know, won't you? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
* Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-18 21:18:24 +0200]: On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 11:03:36AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: built against 1.5.3: ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/setup.hint I think I fixed all concerns with the binary package and most concerns with the source one. I would greatly appreciate it if someone took over this package maintenance. I am the upstream maintainer and I have quite enough on my plate with that. thanks. Uploaded. thanks a lot! Please announce on cygwin-announce as described on http://cygwin.com/setup.html. done. Still looking for a maintainer? Actually it's not that hard. Just keep an eye on the cygwin mailing list. I honestly doubt that you'll get more than 1 or 2 questions about clisp per week on that list. I am always looking for help with CLISP. Even a little bit, like packaging the sources is welcome. Even more welcome would be initial bug processing (i.e., identifying whether the bug is cygwin-specific) Even more welcome would be fixing all the bugs on the fly. Even more welcome Well... except it has really serious problems in which case you'll be glad to know, won't you? indeed. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.memri.org/ http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.honestreporting.com Don't ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
RE: new package proposal: CLISP
From: Sam Steingold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2003 7:26 AM To: Billinghurst, David (CALCRTS) Subject: Re: new package proposal: CLISP maybe you could be interested in maintaining cygwin packages of both CLISP and Maxima? it appears that you are the natural candidate! Sam, You may be right. Pressure of real work has stopped me from putting my hand up, and fatally delayed plans to contribute some other packages, but I would like to see a maxima package for cygwin. I can't do anything for a week or two, but I will consider you offer.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
Christopher Faylor wrote: what do you want - a marriage contract? Well maybe Sam just thinks that being a mantainer means producing a package 12 minutes after the upstream release, solve all and all the problems right now, reply to all the mail in zero time... which being a mantainer is *not* IMHO, not to those extremes anyway. (I'm not trying to correct CGF, just trying to ease Sam's fears.. fears that I also had, when I chose to maintain packages) IMHO beaing *both* the creator and the mantainer greatly simplifies the mantainer task as is, in general, a good thing. And if the problem is in the whining I guess Sam'll stop to ask for mantainers just ilke I stopped saying aloud my self-complaints about the rsync bugs I still didn't solve 0=) -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
* Igor Pechtchanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-15 11:57:43 -0400]: On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: * Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-13 19:41:02 -0400]: this is a misunderstanding. I am maintaining this package. please do upload it. Your first act as a maintainer was to ask someone else to maintain the package, indicating that you have quite enough on my plate. That does not fill me with confidence. what do you want - a marriage contract? I have been looking for someone to make and maintain CLISP cygwin package for a year. now I am doing it myself. I am still looking for someone to take over. so? I don't see how having a separate maintainer for the Cygwin version of CLISP makes your task any easier. All the patches will still go to you (as an upstream maintainer), as will most of the bug reports. If you're the Cygwin maintainer, you won't have to worry about notifying the Cygwin maintainer of new releases, etc. In fact, you don't even have to maintain a separate set of Cygwin patches (if you include the CYGWIN-PATCHES directory in the main repository). All in all, if I were an author of a package, I'd choose to maintain it myself... This is all IMO, of course. Let me wander away for a second. When people say consistent interface, they mean different things. For Mozilla people this means that Mozilla on Linux, Windows and Mac looks exactly the same. For GNOME people this means that all GNOME applications look exactly the same. Both these consistecies cannot be satisfied at the same time, right? The same goes for package maintenance. As a CLISP maintainer, I want the CLISP build process to be identical on all systems. Indeed it is: on unix and win32/mingw, all it takes to configure, build and install is: ./configure --install Now, cygwin maintainers (like RedHat maintaners, Debian maintaners c c) want all packages to look the same _to them_. This is quite reasonable, but it puts a certain strain on me: I have to learn all sort of new stuff (setup.hint format, CYGWIN-PATCHES, *.spec, debian c c). This is why I want someone who already maintains a cygwin package and who is comfortable with all these requirements to maintain the CLISP cygwin package. I am lucky that CLISP already has a debian maintainer. Now I want a cygwin maintainer too. Thanks. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.memri.org/ http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.honestreporting.com History doesn't repeat itself, but historians do repeat each other.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
Sam Steingold wrote: Now, cygwin maintainers (like RedHat maintaners, Debian maintaners c c) want all packages to look the same _to them_. This is quite reasonable, but it puts a certain strain on me: I have to learn all sort of new stuff (setup.hint format, CYGWIN-PATCHES, *.spec, debian c c). This is why I want someone who already maintains a cygwin package and who is comfortable with all these requirements to maintain the CLISP cygwin package. I am lucky that CLISP already has a debian maintainer. Now I want a cygwin maintainer too. If your *only* concern is in learning how to mantain a cygwin package (as simple as it seems to be to me now, it seemed not at the beginning) I guess I can propose myself to proxy-package it. But as I had not time enough yet to deep-test rsync package (which has months-long cygwin-specific hang issues) I would never have time to correct cygwin-specific problems in CLISP myself, I'm not even an assiduous LISP user. (though it's in my to-do list, to learn it properly, that list is very long...) So, if you're happy enough with someone that just need to package that for you, I guess I can help, but... But it would seems like cheating to me: the burden of a cygwin-specific package is having a cygwin-specific README installed in the correct directory (/usr/share/doc/Cygwin) and having the binaries installed in the correct directory (/usr/bin). setup.hint is a fake problem, as once created, is almost never changed. So, once someone (me, you, whoever) creates the cygwin-specific README (basically including only a short description, a it compiles out of the box notice, and the list of requierd packages and installed files) and the setup.hint and your own install tool of choice is configured to support cygwin's directory tree (i.e. using /usr/bin insteadof /usr/local/bin, which many package use by default) creating a new version of the package would be as easy as running a script. The *big* part of being a mantainer is, IMHO, trying to solve cygwin-specific problems... and if you want to do that anyway then mantaining the package really comes almost free. Anyway if this seems unnatural to you and you really like someone else to mantain your package, with the things I said above, I can do that... I would really like to have maxima on Cygwin 0=) -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
* Lapo Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-15 21:54:41 +0200]: Sam Steingold wrote: Now, cygwin maintainers (like RedHat maintaners, Debian maintaners c c) want all packages to look the same _to them_. This is quite reasonable, but it puts a certain strain on me: I have to learn all sort of new stuff (setup.hint format, CYGWIN-PATCHES, *.spec, debian c c). This is why I want someone who already maintains a cygwin package and who is comfortable with all these requirements to maintain the CLISP cygwin package. I am lucky that CLISP already has a debian maintainer. Now I want a cygwin maintainer too. If your *only* concern is in learning how to mantain a cygwin package (as simple as it seems to be to me now, it seemed not at the beginning) I guess I can propose myself to proxy-package it. great! But it would seems like cheating to me: the burden of a cygwin-specific package is having a cygwin-specific README installed in the correct directory (/usr/share/doc/Cygwin) and having the binaries installed in the correct directory (/usr/bin). setup.hint is a fake problem, as once created, is almost never changed. CLISP build process creates both setup.hint and cygwin README, so the binary package is created OOTB. The *big* part of being a mantainer is, IMHO, trying to solve cygwin-specific problems... CLISP is not likely to have cygwin-specific problems. That said, it would indeed be nice if someone were doing that. Right now, it all lands on my plate anyway, so whatever you can take from it (e.g., making src package) - please have it! -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.memri.org/ http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.honestreporting.com Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
* 2003-09-15 Sam Steingold [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.cygwin-apps * Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | * Igor Pechtchanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-15 11:57:43 -0400]: | | On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: | | * Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-13 19:41:02 -0400]: | |this is a misunderstanding. I am maintaining this package. |please do upload it. | |Your first act as a maintainer was to ask someone else to maintain |the package, indicating that you have quite enough on my plate. |That does not fill me with confidence. | | what do you want - a marriage contract? | I have been looking for someone to make and maintain CLISP cygwin | package for a year. now I am doing it myself. I am still looking for | someone to take over. so? | | I don't see how having a separate maintainer for the Cygwin version of | CLISP makes your task any easier. All the patches will still go to | you (as an upstream maintainer), as will most of the bug reports. If | you're the Cygwin maintainer, you won't have to worry about notifying | the Cygwin maintainer of new releases, etc. In fact, you don't even | have to maintain a separate set of Cygwin patches (if you include the | CYGWIN-PATCHES directory in the main repository). All in all, if I | were an author of a package, I'd choose to maintain it myself... This | is all IMO, of course. | | Let me wander away for a second. | | When people say consistent interface, they mean different things. | For Mozilla people this means that Mozilla on Linux, Windows and Mac | looks exactly the same. For GNOME people this means that all | GNOME applications look exactly the same. Both these consistecies | cannot be satisfied at the same time, right? | | The same goes for package maintenance. | | As a CLISP maintainer, I want the CLISP build process to be identical | on all systems. Indeed it is: on unix and win32/mingw, all it takes | to configure, build and install is: | ./configure --install | | Now, cygwin maintainers (like RedHat maintaners, Debian maintaners c | c) want all packages to look the same _to them_. This is quite | reasonable, but it puts a certain strain on me: I have to learn all sort | of new stuff (setup.hint format, CYGWIN-PATCHES, *.spec, debian c c). | | This is why I want someone who already maintains a cygwin package and | who is comfortable with all these requirements to maintain the CLISP | cygwin package. | | I am lucky that CLISP already has a debian maintainer. | Now I want a cygwin maintainer too. I know what you mean, having have to learn the Cygwin method in summer. I now have a automatic tool to build Cygwin Net release packages quite easily, so I might consider being clisp maintainer. I'll contact you directly to get us started Jari -- http://tiny-tools.sourceforge.net/ Swatch @time http://www.mir.com.my/iTime/itime.htm http://www.ryanthiessen.com/swatch/resources.htm Use Licenses! http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6225 Which Licence? http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4825 OSI Licences http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:46:08PM -0500, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: My list of no-README packages: [snip] ghostscript-base Actually, this package does in fact contain a README: usr/doc/Cygwin/ghostscript-7.05.README. -- Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.helixdigital.com
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
built against 1.5.3: ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/setup.hint I think I fixed all concerns with the binary package and most concerns with the source one. I would greatly appreciate it if someone took over this package maintenance. I am the upstream maintainer and I have quite enough on my plate with that. thanks. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.memri.org/ http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.honestreporting.com Growing Old is Inevitable; Growing Up is Optional.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 11:03:36AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: built against 1.5.3: ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/setup.hint I think I fixed all concerns with the binary package and most concerns with the source one. I would greatly appreciate it if someone took over this package maintenance. I am the upstream maintainer and I have quite enough on my plate with that. Ok. If we don't actually have a maintainer (or just a half-hearted maintainer) for this then this package is vetoed. Just so it's clear and someone doesn't upload this package. cgf
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: Now, I propose that if the package builds OOTB with the settings from cygwin.com/setup.html, you can skip the README, but it is still recommended to have a README. Also it would be nice to note in the README what packages you need for compiling (gcc, make, perl, gettext, etc.) to avoid downloading the source only to have to go back and download libintl27-devel or something. I think the setup.hint format allows build-requires, but I'm not sure if setup.exe supports them -- or if it should. What if I want to simply download a source package to look at it, but not build it? Should setu prevent me from downloading foo-src unless I also select bar-devel and baz-devel, the build-requires packages for foo-src? My list of no-README packages: is completely wrong. _update-info-dir Not a real package. It's a fake pseudo package with an auto-incrementing version number, to assist all the OTHER packages that install info files. Now, the rest of the packages that I have copied into this message from your list are mine (that is, I've ignored those packages in your list that are not mine). All of my packages that appear in your list either (A) DO have READMEs so I'll thank you to stop spreading FUD about my packages, or (B) are dll-only packages (see below). Many of the other packages, which are not mine but do appear in your list, ALSO actually have READMEs. Those that do not (e.g. the rare instance where your list was correct) typically predate the codification on the webpage. Consider them grandfathered. gettext-devel usr/share/doc/Cygwin/gettext-devel-0.12.1.README libgdbm-devel usr/share/doc/Cygwin/libgdbm-devel-1.8.3.README libncurses-devel usr/share/doc/Cygwin/libncurses-devel-5.3.README libtiff libtiff-devel usr/share/doc/Cygwin/tiff-3.6.0.README usr/share/doc/Cygwin/libtiff-devel-3.6.0.README mingw-zlib usr/share/doc/Cygwin/mingw-zlib-1.1.4.README libbz2_1 libcharset1 libgdbm3 libgdbm4 libgettextpo0 libiconv2 libintl libintl1 libintl2 libjpeg62 libjpeg6b libncurses libncurses5 libncurses6 libncurses7 libpng12 libreadline4 libreadline5 libtiff3 libtiff4 These are DLL packages, built from the same sources as the main package. They cannot contain READMEs because the readme's would clash -- the whole point of the DLL packages is to allow simultaneous coexistence. A DLL-only package is just that: only the DLL and nothing else. -- Chuck
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
* Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-13 12:29:35 -0400]: On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 11:03:36AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: built against 1.5.3: ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/setup.hint I think I fixed all concerns with the binary package and most concerns with the source one. I would greatly appreciate it if someone took over this package maintenance. I am the upstream maintainer and I have quite enough on my plate with that. Ok. If we don't actually have a maintainer (or just a half-hearted maintainer) for this then this package is vetoed. this is a misunderstanding. I am maintaining this package. please do upload it. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.memri.org/ http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.honestreporting.com Bill Gates is not god and Microsoft is not heaven.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 03:51:56PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: * Christopher Faylor [2003-09-13 12:29:35 -0400]: On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 11:03:36AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: built against 1.5.3: ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-2-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/setup.hint I think I fixed all concerns with the binary package and most concerns with the source one. I would greatly appreciate it if someone took over this package maintenance. I am the upstream maintainer and I have quite enough on my plate with that. Ok. If we don't actually have a maintainer (or just a half-hearted maintainer) for this then this package is vetoed. this is a misunderstanding. I am maintaining this package. please do upload it. Your first act as a maintainer was to ask someone else to maintain the package, indicating that you have quite enough on my plate. That does not fill me with confidence.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 05:10, Charles Wilson wrote: I think the setup.hint format allows build-requires, but I'm not sure if setup.exe supports them -- or if it should. What if I want to simply download a source package to look at it, but not build it? Yep. The parser handles build-depends. And the GUI doesn't allow you to say 'get the build-depends'. I agree that setup not download the build depends unless requested. And even if it's not requested, having the build depends is, and always should be optional. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://members.aardvark.net.au/lifeless/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 08:01:59PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: what do you want - a marriage contract? No. I'd like someone who isn't intent on shooting themselves in the foot in every other message to the cygwin mailing lists. If you want to support the package then why were you asking for someone else to do it? Just a temporary lapse? I have been looking for someone to make and maintain CLISP cygwin package for a year. And, where was this? I don't see anything obvious in the archives. Given the amount of meta discussion you insisted on having about this package (the I don't want to read cygwin-apps via email and the setup.hint should support an include and the hey! There are other packages without a cygwin README! and finally can someone else maintain this?) and the fact that AFAICT there has only been one vote for it, my confidence level is still pretty low. So, *does* someone else want to maintain it? Or at least vote for it? When I scan for vote in this thread, I only see Lapo responding. cgf
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
* In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] * On the subject of Re: new package proposal : CLISP * Sent on Sat, 06 Sep 2003 10:09:54 +0200 * Honorable Lapo Luchini ... writes: Binary package seems good, though it doesn't install cygwin-specific documentation. /usr/share/doc/clisp/* is all the doc there is. or do you want .../clisp-2.31/? (everyone is different - cygwin/RH, debian ...) Source package: it doesn't seems to have any specific instruction nor a CYGWIN-PATCHES subdir. nothing cygwin-specific is needed. unix/INSTALL is all you need. CLISP builds OOTB. Last but not least, targetting cygwin-1.5.x is now a requirement, I think? Oh boy I upgraded to 1.5.3 last Friday and I cannot _configure_! the configure scripts fail with: ./configure --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --build --fsstnd=redhat --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin build-O .. executing /cygdrive/d/gnu/clisp/current/build-O/avcall/configure --srcdir=../../ffcall/avcall --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin --cache-file=../config.cache configure: error: invalid package name: module the cause is an `expr' call which unexpectedly fails. if I add any other `expr' call right before the failing one, it works... advice?! -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.memri.org/ http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.honestreporting.com He who laughs last did not get the joke.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
Sam, Replies inline below. On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: * In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] * On the subject of Re: new package proposal : CLISP * Sent on Sat, 06 Sep 2003 10:09:54 +0200 * Honorable Lapo Luchini ... writes: ^ Thanks. Binary package seems good, though it doesn't install cygwin-specific documentation. /usr/share/doc/clisp/* is all the doc there is. or do you want .../clisp-2.31/? (everyone is different - cygwin/RH, debian ...) According to http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents, a Cygwin-specific README is required. Some maintainers also include port notes and other Cygwin-specific information (e.g., package contents) in that file (see the generic readme file on the above page for an example). It's probably acceptable to have a one-liner referring to the non-Cygwin-specific documentation in /usr/share/doc/clisp. Source package: it doesn't seems to have any specific instruction nor a CYGWIN-PATCHES subdir. nothing cygwin-specific is needed. unix/INSTALL is all you need. CLISP builds OOTB. CYGWIN-PATCHES should contain at least the Cygwin-specific README (see above) and setup.hint. Last but not least, targetting cygwin-1.5.x is now a requirement, I think? Oh boy I upgraded to 1.5.3 last Friday and I cannot _configure_! the configure scripts fail with: ./configure --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --build --fsstnd=redhat --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin build-O .. executing /cygdrive/d/gnu/clisp/current/build-O/avcall/configure --srcdir=../../ffcall/avcall --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin --cache-file=../config.cache configure: error: invalid package name: module the cause is an `expr' call which unexpectedly fails. if I add any other `expr' call right before the failing one, it works... advice?! Umm, sorry, I'm not as configure-savvy as I'd like to be... Do you use autoconf? If so, did you re-run it after upgrading? It would help knowing which versions of autotools you have installed. 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: new package proposal : CLISP
Igor, * In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] * On the subject of Re: new package proposal : CLISP * Sent on Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:43:24 -0400 (EDT) * Honorable Igor Pechtchanski ... writes: On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: Binary package seems good, though it doesn't install cygwin-specific documentation. /usr/share/doc/clisp/* is all the doc there is. or do you want .../clisp-2.31/? (everyone is different - cygwin/RH, debian ...) According to http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents, a Cygwin-specific README is required. Some maintainers also include port notes and other Cygwin-specific information (e.g., package contents) in that file (see the generic readme file on the above page for an example). It's probably acceptable to have a one-liner referring to the non-Cygwin-specific documentation in /usr/share/doc/clisp. $ ls /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/ | wc -l 41 $ cygcheck -c | wc -l 206 so only 20% of packages supply this cygwin-specific README. Oh well, I can throw something together. Source package: it doesn't seems to have any specific instruction nor a CYGWIN-PATCHES subdir. nothing cygwin-specific is needed. unix/INSTALL is all you need. CLISP builds OOTB. CYGWIN-PATCHES should contain at least the Cygwin-specific README (see above) and setup.hint. so you want me to keep a separate 7MB source tar file just for the sake of redundantly redundant identical information already contained elsewhere. Oh well, disk space is cheap. Last but not least, targetting cygwin-1.5.x is now a requirement Oh boy I upgraded to 1.5.3 last Friday and I cannot _configure_! the configure scripts fail with: ./configure --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --build --fsstnd=redhat --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin build-O .. executing /cygdrive/d/gnu/clisp/current/build-O/avcall/configure --srcdir=../../ffcall/avcall --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin --cache-file=../config.cache configure: error: invalid package name: module the cause is an `expr' call which unexpectedly fails. if I add any other `expr' call right before the failing one, it works... advice?! Umm, sorry, I'm not as configure-savvy as I'd like to be... Do you use autoconf? yes. If so, did you re-run it after upgrading? yes. It would help knowing which versions of autotools you have installed. autoconf 2.57a-1OK automake 1.7.5a-1 OK -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.memri.org/ http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.honestreporting.com The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: Igor, * In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] * On the subject of Re: new package proposal : CLISP * Sent on Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:43:24 -0400 (EDT) * Honorable Igor Pechtchanski ... writes: On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: Binary package seems good, though it doesn't install cygwin-specific documentation. /usr/share/doc/clisp/* is all the doc there is. or do you want .../clisp-2.31/? (everyone is different - cygwin/RH, debian ...) According to http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents, a Cygwin-specific README is required. Some maintainers also include port notes and other Cygwin-specific information (e.g., package contents) in that file (see the generic readme file on the above page for an example). It's probably acceptable to have a one-liner referring to the non-Cygwin-specific documentation in /usr/share/doc/clisp. $ ls /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/ | wc -l 41 $ cygcheck -c | wc -l 206 so only 20% of packages supply this cygwin-specific README. Try also ls /usr/doc/Cygwin/ | wc -l -- some older packages still have their Cygwin-specific docs there. That still doesn't cover all the packages, but will probably bring the total to well over 50%. Oh well, I can throw something together. Source package: it doesn't seems to have any specific instruction nor a CYGWIN-PATCHES subdir. nothing cygwin-specific is needed. unix/INSTALL is all you need. CLISP builds OOTB. CYGWIN-PATCHES should contain at least the Cygwin-specific README (see above) and setup.hint. so you want me to keep a separate 7MB source tar file just for the sake of redundantly redundant identical information already contained elsewhere. Oh well, disk space is cheap. If you use the generic-build-script (I don't know whether you do or not), you'd have to keep one anyway, at least long enough to upload it... ;-) Last but not least, targetting cygwin-1.5.x is now a requirement Oh boy I upgraded to 1.5.3 last Friday and I cannot _configure_! the configure scripts fail with: ./configure --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --build --fsstnd=redhat --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin build-O .. executing /cygdrive/d/gnu/clisp/current/build-O/avcall/configure --srcdir=../../ffcall/avcall --with-module=syscalls --with-module=regexp --with-module=dirkey --with-module=bindings/win32 --with-module=clx/new-clx --with-libsigsegv-prefix=/usr/local/libsigsegv-cygwin --cache-file=../config.cache configure: error: invalid package name: module the cause is an `expr' call which unexpectedly fails. if I add any other `expr' call right before the failing one, it works... advice?! Umm, sorry, I'm not as configure-savvy as I'd like to be... Do you use autoconf? yes. If so, did you re-run it after upgrading? yes. It would help knowing which versions of autotools you have installed. autoconf 2.57a-1OK automake 1.7.5a-1 OK Aren't those test versions? Do you get the same problem with the curr ones? In any case, I'll just let some autotool expert (Chuck?) speak up on this one. 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: new package proposal : CLISP
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Lapo Luchini wrote: Igor Pechtchanski wrote: * In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] * On the subject of Re: new package proposal : CLISP * Sent on Sat, 06 Sep 2003 10:09:54 +0200 * Honorable Lapo Luchini ... writes: ^ Thanks. ?_? That was where the e-mail address would have been. I asked Sam to not quote them, and he complied, so I thanked him. 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: new package proposal : CLISP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Igor Pechtchanski wrote: | Thanks. | | ?_? | | That was where the e-mail address would have been. I asked Sam to | not quote them, and he complied, so I thanked him. Igor Sorry didn't notice it. Anyway I have email in signature, and you too ^_^ (but anyway it's a Godd Thing as a general rule) - -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAj9eHLQACgkQaJiCLMjyUvtazQCguCj7ELzyhGo1saicZQ2dtidz Eh4AnR7KOO9h3iriaLl53xBvrJgOkqdZ =o/lh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: new package proposal: CLISP
From: Sam Steingold Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2003 6:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: new package proposal: CLISP I created a new package: CLISP (http://clisp.cons.org) I would like to see this included. I use clisp compiled maxima under cygwin. BTW: Does it pass it's regression tests? I built clisp-2.31 with cygwin-1.5.3 last night, and had a testsuite failure.
RE: new package proposal: CLISP
From: Sam Steingold Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2003 6:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: new package proposal: CLISP I created a new package: CLISP (http://clisp.cons.org) ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-1.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/clisp-2.31-1-src.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/latest/cygwin/setup.hint I have installed this (by untarring the tarball in /) and tested it by building maxima-5.9.0. maxima passes its testsuite.
Re: new package proposal : CLISP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lapo Luchini wrote: | BTW for the list: downloading packages, I will review tomorrow | morning. Binary package seems good, though it doesn't install cygwin-specific documentation. Uses the new FHS for doc and man, too. I see no binary dependances on the main executable, moreover it is not stripped. These two could be a non-problem as the exe seems to be too small for a list interpreter, probably the code in in some library. usr/lib/clisp/base/lisp.exe ~ C:\Cygwin\bin\cygwin1.dll ~C:\WINDOWS\System32\KERNEL32.dll ~ C:\WINDOWS\System32\ntdll.dll ~ C:\Cygwin\bin\cygiconv-2.dll ~ C:\Cygwin\bin\cygintl-2.dll ~ C:\Cygwin\bin\cygncurses7.dll ~ C:\Cygwin\bin\cygreadline5.dll ~C:\WINDOWS\System32\USER32.dll ~ C:\WINDOWS\System32\GDI32.dll ~C:\WINDOWS\System32\ADVAPI32.dll ~ C:\WINDOWS\System32\RPCRT4.dll OK, I'd say that dependances aer all in this file: libncurses7 libintl2 libiconv2 libreadline5 Source package: it doesn't seems to have any specific instruction nor a CYGWIN-PATCHES subdir. Last but not least, targetting cygwin-1.5.x is now a requirement, I think? Sam, correct these little problems and create a new package, I'd be the first to vote for its inclusion ;-) (well this can be considered a vote already, though the package needs fixing) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAj9ZllIACgkQaJiCLMjyUvv8eQCgjbxaLekxu3vfQp/a98dt9H7J BxcAmgIy5Pj2QJ2DmnzULPvkuYo5bZJy =aUty -END PGP SIGNATURE-
