Re: doxygen status
Chris, btw. quoting http://cygwin.com/setup.html: Submitting a package ... 7. So you've got a package you want to submit. Follow the following checklist before emailing cygwin-apps@cygwin.com and you'll almost certainly save time. Announce on cygwin-apps@cygwin.com that you have the package ready for uploading. Add the URLs to all package files to your mail or, if you can't provide it on a web page, someone with upload privileges will contact you to get access to the package files to upload them to sourceware.org for you. If the above is not true, then it should be corrected, shouldn't it? H. Christopher Faylor wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:30:43AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: I've packaged tested the latest doxygen release (1.4.2-20050410) after applying Max' latest patch (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300204). Since this is my first package contribution: how do I go about uploading? I currently don't have a webserver where I can stage the packages. That's rather a show stopper. We usually use the pull model for retrieving packages, which means you need to have a web site. Can't you use one of the free web hosting facilities? cgf
Re: doxygen status
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:39:12PM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: Chris, btw. quoting http://cygwin.com/setup.html: Submitting a package ... 7. So you've got a package you want to submit. Follow the following checklist before emailing cygwin-apps@cygwin.com and you'll almost certainly save time. Announce on cygwin-apps@cygwin.com that you have the package ready for uploading. Add the URLs to all package files to your mail or, if you can't provide it on a web page, someone with upload privileges will contact you to get access to the package files to upload them to sourceware.org for you. If the above is not true, then it should be corrected, shouldn't it? I changed the documentation. cgf
Re: doxygen status
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:39:12PM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: Chris, btw. quoting http://cygwin.com/setup.html: Submitting a package ... 7. So you've got a package you want to submit. Follow the following checklist before emailing cygwin-apps@cygwin.com and you'll almost certainly save time. Announce on cygwin-apps@cygwin.com that you have the package ready for uploading. Add the URLs to all package files to your mail or, if you can't provide it on a web page, someone with upload privileges will contact you to get access to the package files to upload them to sourceware.org for you. If the above is not true, then it should be corrected, shouldn't it? I changed the documentation. FWIW, items 6 and 7 now contradict, and should probably be merged into one item... 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! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
Re: doxygen status
Chris, Christopher Faylor wrote: ...We usually use the pull model for retrieving packages, which means you need to have a web site. Can't you use one of the free web hosting facilities? I already went through two free hosting providers. The first one I tried (netfirms) had a limit of 256k on downloads and wouldn't provide directory listings. The second one I tried (Yahoo / geocities) does not allow bz2 and .hint files to be stored. Max finds it nasty just to rename extensions. Which free ones do the experts recommend? H.
Re: doxygen status
heard anything from the doxygen maintainer? R.I.P? On Mar 24 09:02, Hans Horn wrote: Group, I noticed that the vintage of doxygen that ships with cygwin (v1.2.18) is more than two years old. The current version of doxygen (1.4.1-20050315) builds ootb and appears to be functioning properly; I ran it on a mid-size C++ source tree and on a rather large Java source tree. When doing the latter, I noticed that the current vintage is almost infinitely faster than the one that is shipping with cygwin. The question is, is there a maintainer for doxygen, and if so, is she still alive and willing. If not, I'd like to step up to the plate and offer my services as new doxygen maintainer. Dunno if our Doxygen maintainer is still listening, but I've Cc'd the cygwin-apps list. Ryunosuke, are you still somewhere around? Are you still interested in maintaining doxygen? Hans, further discussion should take place on cygwin-apps. Thanks for your offer, Corinna
Re: doxygen status
On Apr 11 07:12, Hans W. Horn wrote: heard anything from the doxygen maintainer? R.I.P? Nope. Go ahead. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: doxygen status
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Apr 11 07:12, Hans W. Horn wrote: heard anything from the doxygen maintainer? R.I.P? Nope. Go ahead. I've just filed this upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300204 [PATCH] Doxygen disobeys Cygwin 'text/binary mount mode' please consider including until it gets applied upstream. Also note that 1.4.2 has a nasty regression in member group handling. Locally, I've fallen back to 1.4.1. Max.
Re: doxygen status
Will do! thanks, Max. Max Bowsher wrote: I've just filed this upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300204 [PATCH] Doxygen disobeys Cygwin 'text/binary mount mode' please consider including until it gets applied upstream. Also note that 1.4.2 has a nasty regression in member group handling. Locally, I've fallen back to 1.4.1. v1.4.2 has also fixed various problems, that caused me to move to 1.4.2. H.
Re: doxygen status
Hans W. Horn wrote: Will do! thanks, Max. Max Bowsher wrote: I've just filed this upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300204 [PATCH] Doxygen disobeys Cygwin 'text/binary mount mode' please consider including until it gets applied upstream. Also note that 1.4.2 has a nasty regression in member group handling. Locally, I've fallen back to 1.4.1. v1.4.2 has also fixed various problems, that caused me to move to 1.4.2. Maybe then evaluate 1.4.2-20050419, which seems to have cleared up at least some of 1.4.2's regressions? Max.
Re: doxygen status
I've packaged tested the latest doxygen release (1.4.2-20050410) after applying Max' latest patch (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300204). Since this is my first package contribution: how do I go about uploading? I currently don't have a webserver where I can stage the packages. Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Apr 11 07:12, Hans W. Horn wrote: heard anything from the doxygen maintainer? R.I.P? Nope. Go ahead. Corinna
Re: doxygen status
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:30:43AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: I've packaged tested the latest doxygen release (1.4.2-20050410) after applying Max' latest patch (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300204). Since this is my first package contribution: how do I go about uploading? I currently don't have a webserver where I can stage the packages. That's rather a show stopper. We usually use the pull model for retrieving packages, which means you need to have a web site. Can't you use one of the free web hosting facilities? cgf
Re: doxygen status
Hans W. Horn wrote: I've packaged tested the latest doxygen release (1.4.2-20050410) after applying Max' latest patch (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300204). BTW, which platform did you tell doxygen's configure to use? I've been building with linux-g++. Also, did you build with the internal libpng, or use Cygwin's system libpng? I used the system libpng (just removed the make -C libpng command from the makefile). Max.
Re: doxygen status
Max, Max Bowsher wrote: BTW, which platform did you tell doxygen's configure to use? I've been building with linux-g++. I was using win32-g++. Also, did you build with the internal libpng, or use Cygwin's system libpng? I used the system libpng (just removed the make -C libpng command from the makefile). I did always build link doxygen with its own png (libpng1.0). Hm, interesting, cygwin's default png is libpng12, which infact is used in the include path for the compilation of doxygen sources, (e.g. g++ -c -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O -I../qtools -I/usr/include/libpng12 -I../libmd5 -o ../objects/ce_lex.o ce_lex.cpp). I just re-built doxygen w/o its built-in png and ran a few documentation projects. The results seem to indicate that the png version used doesn't matter. H.
Re: doxygen status
Hans W. Horn wrote: Max, Max Bowsher wrote: BTW, which platform did you tell doxygen's configure to use? I've been building with linux-g++. I was using win32-g++. Ah. Then my patch certainly isn't having any effect at all, since qfile_unix.cpp isn't even being compiled. I've no specific points in favour of either option, just a general observation that when special-case windows file handling code is used, it often ends up going behind Cygwin's back, and making the program act more Windows-ish than a Cygwin user expects. Plus the win32-g++ mode has explicit -D__CYGWIN__ options thrown all over the place, when Cygwin compilers have been predefining that symbol for absolutely ages, suggesting that might be somewhat bitrotted. Also, did you build with the internal libpng, or use Cygwin's system libpng? I used the system libpng (just removed the make -C libpng command from the makefile). I did always build link doxygen with its own png (libpng1.0). Hm, interesting, cygwin's default png is libpng12, which infact is used in the include path for the compilation of doxygen sources, (e.g. g++ -c -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O -I../qtools -I/usr/include/libpng12 -I../libmd5 -o ../objects/ce_lex.o ce_lex.cpp). I just re-built doxygen w/o its built-in png and ran a few documentation projects. The results seem to indicate that the png version used doesn't matter. This is all I've been using to build with the system png library: Index: configure === RCS file: /u/kp3softd/cvsroot/configure,v retrieving revision 1.209 diff -u -p -r1.209 configure --- configure 10 Apr 2005 18:36:48 - 1.209 +++ configure 11 Apr 2005 21:19:31 - @@ -483,7 +483,6 @@ EOF echo $DST echo all: src/version.cpp $DST echo \$(MAKE) -C qtools $DST - echo \$(MAKE) -C libpng $DST echo \$(MAKE) -C libmd5 $DST echo \$(MAKE) -C src $DST if test $f_wizard = YES; then It seems a little wasteful for doxygen to carry around its own version of the code when there's already a package available. Max.
Re: doxygen status
Hi Max, I take that you are suggesting to configure doxygen with linux-g++. Will do, as well as builing using cygwin's libpng. greets, H. Max Bowsher wrote: Hans W. Horn wrote: Max, Max Bowsher wrote: BTW, which platform did you tell doxygen's configure to use? I've been building with linux-g++. I was using win32-g++. Ah. Then my patch certainly isn't having any effect at all, since qfile_unix.cpp isn't even being compiled. I've no specific points in favour of either option, just a general observation that when special-case windows file handling code is used, it often ends up going behind Cygwin's back, and making the program act more Windows-ish than a Cygwin user expects. Plus the win32-g++ mode has explicit -D__CYGWIN__ options thrown all over the place, when Cygwin compilers have been predefining that symbol for absolutely ages, suggesting that might be somewhat bitrotted. Also, did you build with the internal libpng, or use Cygwin's system libpng? I used the system libpng (just removed the make -C libpng command from the makefile). I did always build link doxygen with its own png (libpng1.0). Hm, interesting, cygwin's default png is libpng12, which infact is used in the include path for the compilation of doxygen sources, (e.g. g++ -c -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O -I../qtools -I/usr/include/libpng12 -I../libmd5 -o ../objects/ce_lex.o ce_lex.cpp). I just re-built doxygen w/o its built-in png and ran a few documentation projects. The results seem to indicate that the png version used doesn't matter. This is all I've been using to build with the system png library: Index: configure === RCS file: /u/kp3softd/cvsroot/configure,v retrieving revision 1.209 diff -u -p -r1.209 configure --- configure 10 Apr 2005 18:36:48 - 1.209 +++ configure 11 Apr 2005 21:19:31 - @@ -483,7 +483,6 @@ EOF echo $DST echo all: src/version.cpp $DST echo \$(MAKE) -C qtools $DST - echo \$(MAKE) -C libpng $DST echo \$(MAKE) -C libmd5 $DST echo \$(MAKE) -C src $DST if test $f_wizard = YES; then It seems a little wasteful for doxygen to carry around its own version of the code when there's already a package available. Max.
