Earnie Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Collins wrote:
Right. Well setup compiled before w32api got broken. I've said it twice
now: revert your w32api (which is what's broken) and setup will build
cleanly.
Fixing w32api again is important, and can be address'd in parallel.
Follow to cygwin-patches please.
Thanks for freshening this up. There's still a little more to do, but it
looks good nonetheless.
Rob
- Original Message -
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan Nieuwenhuizen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW: can you freshed up your postremove
Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Follow to cygwin-patches please.
(oops, let's see if I can post there?)
Thanks for freshening this up. There's still a little more to do, but it
looks good nonetheless.
Ok. Last status was: discussion document (otherwise it would have
gone in :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:17:26 +0100 Gerrit P Haase wrote:
Gerrit I would prefer if the listserver would manage this and rewrite
Gerrit the Reply-To Header regardless who is writing, so it points
Gerrit always to the list.
That is not what reply-to is
Billinghurst, David (CRTS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have successfully installed your texmf packages using setup. I just put
your files in my existing downloaded files and edited my existing setup.ini
to add the texmf-* hints.
Simple tests for tex, latex and dvips work. I will have a
- Original Message -
From: Jochen Küpper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gerrit I would prefer if the listserver would manage this and rewrite
Gerrit the Reply-To Header regardless who is writing, so it points
Gerrit always to the list.
That is not what reply-to is intended for.
We are going off
===
- Original Message -
From: Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The have both been bosted to one of the cygwin lists in the last
.p
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Collins wrote:
Non-public code bug reports do belong here
you mean, bug reports for non-public code belong on
***cygwin-apps@***,
right? This thread is on cygwin@ (originally because of the texmf
thing, and
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@%!@#$ ATT@home smtp server it lost my reply to this message, so
this is try #2...
Thanks for doing your try #2
I'm not sure I understand. It wasn't that you needed to provide a
reverse patch,
[..]
It's not supposed to be a backward patch; see
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, but I don't have that itch. Sorry, but I don't really *care*
about rpm itself.
No, me neither. It seemed just more convenient to package my stuff,
although the perl/berk db dependencies didn't really help.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen [EMAIL
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:04:22AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the thing -- Chris has been offering webspace if folks needed
it. BUT, you don't even NEED webspace to port a package. Just port it,
promise to maintain it, and upload it to
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Ok thanks for the pointer. Is there a script to do the packaging?
yep -- each script contains a script (in some package schemes -- #3, I
think -- you have to apply the patch FIRST, and then the script is
created in srcdir/CYGWIN-PATCHES/ or something).
pop
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're in bsd-ports make world mode, I see. I don't think that is a
goal, yet. *OUR* concern is make cygwin work.
Yes, I guess our priorities don't match. I've been in make world
mode since the b20 days; I needed to build some core development
Robert Collins wrote:
do porting. So the point is that if RPM had been contributed, and you
maintain *just that one package* as an official package (Hey, Chuck this
goes for you too :})
Yeah, but I don't have that itch. Sorry, but I don't really *care*
about rpm itself. I just liked the
14 matches
Mail list logo
