Re: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-1
On Oct 4 22:31, David Stacey wrote: wget \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/doxygen-1.8.0-1.tar.bz2 \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/doxygen-1.8.0-1-src.tar.bz2 \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/setup.hint \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/md5.sum Uploaded. Please send an announcement to the cygwin-announce ML as described on http://cygwin.com/setup.html#submitting Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-2 -- A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D.
On 10/2/2012 1:10 PM, David Stacey wrote: On 02/10/12 02:27, Warren Young wrote: You should keep using -1 for subsequent build attempts Apologies for that. I was following the advice here: http://cygwin.com/setup.html#submitting I was sure I'd seen Corinna complain about a -1 to -2 during a similar discussion over a proposed package upload, but even if my recollection is correct, I think the public document takes precedence. 2. /usr/share/doc/doxygen/latex should be removed, I agree completely, but I kept the 'latex' directory for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this was consistent with the previous build of doxygen (1.7.4-1), which included the latex directory [1]. Yes, I realize you were just following my previous example, but I'm far from infallible. I saw something in your package I would have removed from mine if I'd realized that at the time. Secondly, I rather thought that if 'make install' wanted to install the latex directory then it wasn't really my place to delete of it. That's a much stronger argument. You might ask on the Doxygen mailing list why they think Joe User wants the LaTeX manual sources installed. It might be something they've overlooked in their build system. However, I've had a little look at a couple of popular Linux distributions, and neither Fedora [2] nor Ubuntu [3] include the latex directory in their doxygen packages. Ditto RHEL. There's a bogus test in Doxygen's configure script, where it goes looking for dot(1) from GraphViz. It does a weak check for it in a few common locations, and yells if it isn't there. dot(1) being a filter, there isn't a huge penalty for using the native Windows version, which of course doesn't get installed in any of those locations. It would be nice to either 1) send upstream a test using the PATH instead of a hardcoded list; or 2) adopt Yaakov's GraphViz package: If the configure script doesn't detect dot(1) then it isn't the end of the world - you can specify the location of the dot executable by specifying DOT_PATH in the project configuration file: Are you sure Doxygen doesn't use dot during the package build process, such as part of building Doxygen's own manual? I don't see why it would bother trying to find it at configure time otherwise.
Re: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-2 -- A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D.
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 02:37:34PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: On 10/2/2012 1:10 PM, David Stacey wrote: On 02/10/12 02:27, Warren Young wrote: You should keep using -1 for subsequent build attempts Apologies for that. I was following the advice here: http://cygwin.com/setup.html#submitting I was sure I'd seen Corinna complain about a -1 to -2 during a similar discussion over a proposed package upload, but even if my recollection is correct, I think the public document takes precedence. I think I recall Corinna making that point and I agree with it. We should change the public document. I'd rather just refine the -1 version than announce a new -47 version once all of the kinks have been worked out. cgf
RE: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-2 -- A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D.
David Stacey sent the following at Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:11 PM http://cygwin.com/setup.html#submitting Package acceptation ^^^ Might acceptance be a better word? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acceptation (I originally thought that acceptation isn't an English word, but it is.) - Barry Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.
Re: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-2 -- A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D.
On 02/10/12 02:27, Warren Young wrote: You should keep using -1 for subsequent build attempts until one gets RFU'd. Use new package versions only to disambiguate published package versions. The package version number is there to help setup.exe out, not to help us poor humans out. :) Apologies for that. I was following the advice here: http://cygwin.com/setup.html#submitting Do increase the version number no matter what... even if has only been discussed in mailing list and never uploaded: it costs nothing and avoids confusion in both setup.exe and people mind. Maybe someone would be kind enough to clarify when the version number should be bumped up and when it shouldn't. Nits: 1. Another build requirement change: the doxygen.README file still refers to TeTeX, which was replaced recently with TeX Live. But, installing a basic TeX setup alone isn't enough. To build the PDF manual, you need the optional texlive-collection-fontutils package for epstopdf, and texlive-collection-latexextra for float.sty. There's no need to mention any other packages. Installing those two into a stock Cygwin install will drag in enough of the remaining TeX stuff to build the manual. Good spot. I'll correct the reference to TeTeX and submit another version. For my own sanity I'll call it 1.8.0-3, unless someone clarifies the version-bumping quote first. 2. /usr/share/doc/doxygen/latex should be removed, in favor of a .../pdf subdirectory. I don't see a reason to ship source and intermediate build files here, expecting the user to build the docs. What's wanted here is a PDF of the LaTeX *output*. I agree completely, but I kept the 'latex' directory for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this was consistent with the previous build of doxygen (1.7.4-1), which included the latex directory [1]. Secondly, I rather thought that if 'make install' wanted to install the latex directory then it wasn't really my place to delete of it. However, I've had a little look at a couple of popular Linux distributions, and neither Fedora [2] nor Ubuntu [3] include the latex directory in their doxygen packages. Fedora includes the HTML manual and some examples in the main 'doxygen' package; Ubuntu has the HTML manual, the examples and the PDF manual in a separate 'doxygen-doc' package [4]. The upshot of this little investigation is that I'm happy to generate the PDF and remove the latex intermediary files. But I see this as an enhancement (rather than a mistake that needs correcting), so I'll do this in the next release of doxygen that I package. [1] http://cygwin.com/packages/doxygen/doxygen-1.7.4-1 [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/builds/show/F-17-i386/doxygen/1/1.8.0/1.fc17/i686#files [3] http://packages.ubuntu.com/quantal/i386/doxygen/filelist [4] http://packages.ubuntu.com/quantal/all/doxygen-doc/filelist 3. I'd rather see your first version be 1.8.2-1 instead. Why start with a version two bug fix releases back? The reason for this is simply down to the amount of testing that I've given the packages. I've given 1.8.0 a rather thorough testing in a Cygwin environment. I'm happy that it works reliably, has no major bugs and improves upon the 1.7.4 build we have at the moment. Sometimes these bug fix releases introduce more bugs than they fix, which is why I'm not going for 1.8.1! I have a build of 1.8.2 for Cygwin, but I have done *much* less testing of it. This version also builds the doxywizard GUI as a separate package, but this has had next to no testing. I'd sooner release something that I have confidence in. When I've got that same level of confidence in 1.8.2 (maybe in a couple of months) then I'll upload that version. There's a bogus test in Doxygen's configure script, where it goes looking for dot(1) from GraphViz. It does a weak check for it in a few common locations, and yells if it isn't there. dot(1) being a filter, there isn't a huge penalty for using the native Windows version, which of course doesn't get installed in any of those locations. It would be nice to either 1) send upstream a test using the PATH instead of a hardcoded list; or 2) adopt Yaakov's GraphViz package: If the configure script doesn't detect dot(1) then it isn't the end of the world - you can specify the location of the dot executable by specifying DOT_PATH in the project configuration file: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/config.html#cfg_dot_path But even that shouldn't be necessary: Cygwin adds the Windows path to its own PATH, so provided that the Windows 'dot.exe' is in your Windows path and you've set HAVE_DOT=YES in your project configuration file, you /should/ get GraphViz graphs in your doxygen output. When I'm more proficient at making Cygwin packages then I may consider adopting GraphViz. GraphViz is a useful tool on its own, and the doxygen output is so much better if it can use dot(1), so there would be benefit to Cygwin having the
Re: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-2 -- A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D.
On 9/29/2012 1:21 PM, David Stacey wrote: wget \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/doxygen-1.8.0-2.tar.bz2 \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/doxygen-1.8.0-2-src.tar.bz2 \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/setup.hint \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/md5.sum You should keep using -1 for subsequent build attempts until one gets RFU'd. Use new package versions only to disambiguate published package versions. The package version number is there to help setup.exe out, not to help us poor humans out. :) Nits: 1. Another build requirement change: the doxygen.README file still refers to TeTeX, which was replaced recently with TeX Live. But, installing a basic TeX setup alone isn't enough. To build the PDF manual, you need the optional texlive-collection-fontutils package for epstopdf, and texlive-collection-latexextra for float.sty. There's no need to mention any other packages. Installing those two into a stock Cygwin install will drag in enough of the remaining TeX stuff to build the manual. 2. /usr/share/doc/doxygen/latex should be removed, in favor of a .../pdf subdirectory. I don't see a reason to ship source and intermediate build files here, expecting the user to build the docs. What's wanted here is a PDF of the LaTeX *output*. 3. I'd rather see your first version be 1.8.2-1 instead. Why start with a version two bug fix releases back? Nits aside, I can't withhold a GTG recommendation, since your packages are no worse off than mine were, and those were apparently still useful to people. :) Something to pursue later, having no effect on GTG status: There's a bogus test in Doxygen's configure script, where it goes looking for dot(1) from GraphViz. It does a weak check for it in a few common locations, and yells if it isn't there. dot(1) being a filter, there isn't a huge penalty for using the native Windows version, which of course doesn't get installed in any of those locations. It would be nice to either 1) send upstream a test using the PATH instead of a hardcoded list; or 2) adopt Yaakov's GraphViz package: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-10/msg00232.html Option 1 is sufficient, but option 2 means you can make graphviz a dependency of your doxygen package, so everyone gets it automatically.
Re: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-1 -- A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D.
On 9/29/2012 2:38 PM, David Stacey wrote: I appreciate that [ITP] messages are normally reserved for new packages, but Warren Young suggested that I send this through as an ITP as this is my first package, and you might want to check it more thoroughly than for a simple update. wget \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/doxygen-1.8.0-1.tar.bz2 \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/doxygen-1.8.0-1-src.tar.bz2 \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/setup.hint \ http://www.drstacey.talktalk.net/md5.sum build and packages are fine. GTG The package is built with cygport: the 'src' file contains the original doxygen source code (unaltered), a couple of patch files and the cygport file itself. As I said, this is my first package - please be patient with a newbie, and apologies in advance for any mistakes. Dave. [setup.hint] sdesc: A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D. ldesc: Doxygen is a documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D. category: Devel requires: libiconv2 $ cygport doxygen-1.8.0-1.cygport deps cygwin-1.7.16-1 libiconv2-1.14-2 libstdc++6-4.5.3-3 Should libstdc++6 reported as additional dependency ? Regards Marco
Re: [ITP] doxygen-1.8.0-1 -- A documentation system for C++, C, Java, Objective-C, IDL (Corba and Microsoft flavors) and to some extent PHP, C#, and D.
David Stacey writes: The package is built with cygport: the 'src' file contains the original doxygen source code (unaltered), a couple of patch files and the cygport file itself. As I said, this is my first package - please be patient with a newbie, and apologies in advance for any mistakes. You might want to drop the setup.hint from the cygwin.patch file and let cygport auto-generate it to take care of dependencies. You'd need to add (resp. alter) the SUMMARY, DESCRIPTION and CATEGORY variables to the cygport file to do this. Regards, Achim. -- +[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds
Re: ITP: Doxygen
Vlad wrote: Greetings, It seems that package has been proposed couple of years ago. And was rejected due to licence problems. Here is the link : http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-09/msg00348.html However several things happend since then. First the ATT labs at cambrige is no more, and the graphviz package is now developed by the graphviz.org. Consequently the licence has changed from some weird proprietary ATT code agreement, to standard CPL licence which is an OSD approved licence. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php http://www.graphviz.org/License.php ... I'm confused by your subject line. Did you mean ITP: Graphviz ? If so, it would be best for you to repost, with the correct subject. Max.
