RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)
Christopher Faylor wrote: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22) On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:17:51PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: On 2003-11-24T11:01-0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: ) On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: ) For now it's just in my records. Even if it is made publicly tunable, I ) imagine it will be made outside of setup.hint (since that is for setup's ) benefit). ) We could decide on a comment convention for setup.hint that could be ) used for some other tool to process: ) ) #!binary only That works, or maybe even #!binary-only and either let multiple flags be on one line or allow flags to have arguments. Good point. sdesc: Frobdicates kernel sources category: Devel requires: cygwin #!maintainer Daniel Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] #!alert-maintainer I think I like this one more since it is closer to the way setup.hint already operates. Is it a good idea to have the maintainers email address in there? Otherwise +1 :) 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 binding commitment through the use of this electronic communication unless it is issued in accordance with the Experian Limited standard terms and conditions of purchase or other express written agreement between Experian Limited and the recipient Experian Limited (registration number 653331) Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG80 1TH
RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)
I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no source: entry for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini fields. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:34:04AM -, Morrison, John wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22) On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:17:51PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: On 2003-11-24T11:01-0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: ) On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: ) For now it's just in my records. Even if it is made publicly tunable, I ) imagine it will be made outside of setup.hint (since that is for setup's ) benefit). ) We could decide on a comment convention for setup.hint that could be ) used for some other tool to process: ) ) #!binary only That works, or maybe even #!binary-only and either let multiple flags be on one line or allow flags to have arguments. Good point. sdesc: Frobdicates kernel sources category: Devel requires: cygwin #!maintainer Daniel Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] #!alert-maintainer I think I like this one more since it is closer to the way setup.hint already operates. Is it a good idea to have the maintainers email address in there? No, you're right. It isn't. Or at least it would be a good idea except for the obvious drawback of having this file trolled by spammers. cgf
RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)
On 2003-11-25T20:53+1100, Robert Collins wrote: ) I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no ) source: entry for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini fields. Were you suggesting using Maintainer: and relying on setup to ignore it? (Neither http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup-2.249.2.ini.html nor http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html seem to define a Maintainer: field.) The idea behind binary-only was to have some deliberate action, so we would not have to rely on a lack of action. That is, a lack of source: could be because the package is not built from sources, or it could be because the packager left out external-source: (or forgot to upload a source package). The current attributes I use in apps.xml are: binary-only (no lack-of-source checks) ignore-before=X (ignore new versions less than or equal to X) ignore-freshmeat (for Cygwin-specific packages) maintainer (just the name) obsolete (binary-only+ignore-freshmeat+no out-of-date checks) related-to=X (the directory this package goes in; libdb4.1-devel is related-to db4.1, which is related-to db) withhold (do not display in the PPL/MPL) Plus, I include URLs, dates for proposals, votes, reviews, etc., but those are probably things I should continue to maintain independently. -- Daniel Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://naim-users.org/nmlorg/ http://naim.n.ml.org/ I don't believe in making something user friendly just for the sake of being user friendly, though; if you're decreasing the users' available power, you're not really being all that friendly to them.
RE: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:32, Daniel Reed wrote: On 2003-11-25T20:53+1100, Robert Collins wrote: ) I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no ) source: entry for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini fields. Were you suggesting using Maintainer: and relying on setup to ignore it? (Neither http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup-2.249.2.ini.html nor http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html seem to define a Maintainer: field.) See inilex.l and iniparse.y. Maintainer is fully parsed, in the manner that it appears in debian Sources list files. The rest does make sense as not-for-setup.ini stuff. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:32, Daniel Reed wrote: On 2003-11-25T20:53+1100, Robert Collins wrote: ) I'm not sure why this is non-setup information. Both binary only (no ) source: entry for a package), and Maintainer are setup.ini fields. Were you suggesting using Maintainer: and relying on setup to ignore it? (Neither http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup-2.249.2.ini.html nor http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html seem to define a Maintainer: field.) See inilex.l and iniparse.y. Maintainer is fully parsed, in the manner that it appears in debian Sources list files. The rest does make sense as not-for-setup.ini stuff. I'm not sure why Maintainer: makes sense as a for-setup.ini field given our stated policies. cgf
Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Pack ages List, 2003-11-22)
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 11:25, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'm not sure why Maintainer: makes sense as a for-setup.ini field given our stated policies. It doesn't have to go into setup.ini - I was simply stating my confusion about inventing a new syntax, when one already exists. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
