RE: Maintainers and cygwin-apps subscriptions

Dario Alcocer wrote: I'm maintaining two packages, and I know that one of the requirements is that I must be subscribed to cygwin-apps. However, the e-mail is easier to read if I use GMANE instead. Can I unsubscribe from cygwin-apps and still maintain the packages? I would still keep up with

Re: Please upload bash-2.05b-17

Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:24:25PM -0400, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: >This is a test version because there is one "debug" output remaining. The >conditions for it should basically never happen, but as long as it's there, >I don't think

Please upload bash-2.05b-17

Hello, I've rolled up a new *test* version of Bash: bash-2.05b-17. Here's the info: c71afc4cde07a18868d76f3a19b75c34 *bash-2.05b-17-src.tar.bz2 7c2f962718bf072af97ad505116cfaa8 *bash-2.05b-17.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/bash-2.05b-17-src.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/bash-2.05b-17.tar.bz2 Thi

Bash updates, bashdb, bash_completion, etc.

Hello all, Let me just start by saying that I really think bashdb would be a nice addition to Cygwin. That said, I'll need some convincing to add it to mainline Bash as I don't want to maintain YA out-of-tree patch for Bash if I can help it. As for Bash-2.05b-17: I've applied Pierre's patch to

Re: bash 3

Pierre A. Humblet wrote: Hello Ronald, Hello Pierre, What are the plans to have bash 3 on Cygwin? I've compiled it and rolled up a package as soon as it was released, but I haven't had time to test it yet - at all. In any case, it will be released as a test package first, but only when I'v

Re: [ITP] e2fsprogs, e2fsimage

Robb, Sam wrote: Hello, I am interested in packaging and maintaining e2fsprogs for Cygwin. Version 1.35 pretty much builds OOTB. My primary interest in e2fsprogs is not the utilities themselves, but the ext2 libraries that are built as part of the package. These ext2 libraries are a pre-requisi

Re: On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Faylor wrote: | On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:02:55PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: | |>cgf wrote: |> |> |>>I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the |>>distribution, however. |>> |>>Possibly we need a gdb packages steerin

Status on coreutils? (was: Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Igor Pechtchanski wrote: | The latest on coreutils is that it's still not ready to go mainstream | (). What is the current status on this? I still have it in my ITP queue and my Bugzilla is startin

Re: [RFC] Would there be a need for a java-wrappers package?

Hello Igor, Personally, I'd much prefer a Free alternative to Java under Cygwin to a wrapper for Cygwin around Java. That notwithstanding, I think it is a good idea to have access to Java from Cygwin, so if you think it is a better idea to make wrapper scripts as opposed to ITPing a free Java

Re: coreutils maintainer needed

Christopher Faylor wrote: I think our textutils/nascent coreutils maintainer is again MIA. Can I get a volunteer to support the coreutils package? coreutils will supercede fileutils and textutils. cgf If no-one else steps up, I'll be happy to step in :) I am currently setting up a new Cygwi

Re: [ITP] git-4.3.20 GNU Interactive tools - new package

Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote: git - Tools for simple, daily file and system management tasks A set of interactive tools that includes an extensible file system browser, an ASCII/hex file viewer, a process viewer/killer, and other related utilities and shell scripts. It increases the speed and ease

Re: [ITP] catdoc-0.93.3 - New package

Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote: Extract text from MS-Word files, trying to preserve as many special printable characters as possible. Catdoc doesn't attempt to analyze Word file formatting, it just extracts readable text. Known to support up to Word-97 format. http://freshmeat.net/projects/catdoc/ a

Re: [ITP] unrtf-0.19.0 - New package for review

Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote: UnRTF is a moderately complicated converter from RTF to other formats, including HTML, LaTeX, text, and PostScript. Converting to HTML, it supports tables, fonts, colors, embedded images, hyperlinks, paragraph alignment among other things a) wget --non-verbose \ http

Re: [ITP] aspell-de-0.50.2 - German dictionary files for aspell

I vote for this :) (and I'll take it out of my ITPs waiting list). rlc On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:12:48PM +0100, Dr. Volker Zell wrote: > Hi > > I would like to contribute and maintain the aspell-de package: > > * http://aspell.net/ (Homepage) > * http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/asp

Re: [ITP] aspell-pl-0.50.2: Polish dictionary files for aspell

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 04:19:24AM +1100, Gareth Pearce wrote: > Aspell-de +1 as well. I don't think I "officially" ITPed this yet, but it's in the pipeline unless someone beats me (has beaten me?) to it.. rlc NB: -fr and -nl are in the pipeline before -de, though..)

Re: [ITP] boxes-2000.0401 - Draw character boxes

this has my vote! rlc On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 06:43:25PM +0200, Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote: > > See http://boxes.thomasjensen.com/ > > Packages available for review: > > http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/boxes-2000.0401-1-src.tar.bz2 > http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/boxes/boxe

Re: [jjohnstn: initial version of iconv support checked in]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:29:46AM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > rlc wrote: >> Please don't: we already have a perfectly good iconv implementation in the >> distribution and there's no law against providing iconv as a separate >> library from the kernel/libc/whatnot. > Of course it isn't "agains

Re: [ITP] aspell-pl-0.50.2: Polish dictionary files for aspell

This has my vote :) (I don't speak polish, but my wife has Polish origins) rlc On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:13:40PM +0100, Dr. Volker Zell wrote: > Hi > > I would like to contribute and maintain the aspell-pl package: > > * http://aspell.net/ (Homepage) > * http://ftp.gnu.org

Curious categories for Doxygen

I was just wondering why Doxygen is not in the Doc category, while Docbook (and even expat) is.. Just wondering :) rlc -- Pascal Users: The Pascal system will be replaced next Tuesday by Cobol. Please modify your programs accordingly.

Re: [jjohnstn: initial version of iconv support checked in]

Please don't: we already have a perfectly good iconv implementation in the distribution and there's no law against providing iconv as a separate library from the kernel/libc/whatnot. By far most applications don't care too much about transcoding, so most applications would simply have to carry aro

Re: Pending patches for generic build script

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:02:50PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > I was going to reply to Chuck's original message, but here goes: > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:38:50PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > >

Re: Pending patches for generic build script

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:38:50PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > Here are the patches I have/had on my 'pending' list for the > generic-build-script. Thanks for (permanently or even just temporarily) > handling these maintainance duties, Igor... > > Some of these messages spawned threads and u

Re: generic-build-script maintainership (WAS Re: non-widget child "DropSiteManager" error)

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:52:42AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > I hope what I said below didn't come out as "I will take over > maintainership". Not really: I think the ``I don't have "a month worth of developers time". :-)'' was pretty clear that you didn't intend to take over maintainership

Re: generic-build-script maintainership (WAS Re: non-widget child "DropSiteManager" error)

My previous response notwithstanding, if you (Igor) do intend to take over maintainership of the generic build script, please feel free to go ahead and do it - I'll spend the time on something else (I've received a request to ITP libsegv, which currently fails two of four testsuite tests, and will

Re: generic-build-script maintainership (WAS Re: non-widget child "DropSiteManager" error)

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:58:01PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:43:00PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > >Does count as > > >(temporarily) passing the baton?

Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-01-09

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:00:01PM -, Daniel Reed wrote: > Package: rxp 1.3.0-1 [2003-11-11] > Package: elinks 0.9.0-2 [2003-12-26] > Package: openldap 2.1.25-1 [2004-01-02] These have my vote. rlc

Re: ITP: help2man-1.33.1-1

I vote for this - this has my vote. rlc On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:50:11AM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I would like to contribute GNU help2man to the Cygwin net distribution. > > Due to a problem in the code for the NLS component (hackloc

Re: [ITP] tree: Recursive directory listing program that produces a depth indented listing of files

In case this still needs votes - it has mine :) rlc On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:20:07PM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote: > Hi list, > > this is a quick one. Canonical homepage is: > > http://mama.indstate.edu/users/ice/tree/ > > --setup.hint-- > sdesc: "Recursive directory listing program that produc

Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-12-16

On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:00:01PM -, Daniel Reed wrote: > Package: dhcp 3.0.1rc11-1 [2003-12-12] > Package: ccrypt 1.6-1 [2003-12-14] These have my vote(s) - I vote for these :) rlc -- Go ahead... make my day. -- Dirty Harry

Re: new pcre packages ready for download

Announcement sent - thanks :) rlc On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:10:33PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote: > On 2003-12-12T15:19+0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > ) http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/pcre/pcre-4.5-1-src.tar.bz2 > ) http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/pcre/pcre-4.5-1.tar.bz2

Update: pcre-4.5-1

I just noticed that a week-end of sleep is a Good Thing when it comes to writing mail. With the corrected subject line above, I hope it gets noticed ;) The latest canonical pcre version is available for Cygwin. MD5 sums and URLs below. (You can also point Setup to http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/, BTW, bu

Re: new pcre packages ready for download

Severe sleep deprevation combined with a lack of cafeine made me notice rather belatedly that the 4.4 files are there as well.. Please ignore them and just take the files cited here.. e891737e53e5675f65eea6ba15d7d0ef *pcre-4.5-1-src.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/pcre/pcre-4.5-1-src.tar.

new pcre packages ready for download

The latest versions of the pcre packages are available for download (out since yesterday afternoon) e891737e53e5675f65eea6ba15d7d0ef *pcre-4.5-1-src.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/pcre/pcre-4.5-1-src.tar.bz2 04754e6ba8866035ff8b99a9e37e8bcd *pcre-4.5-1.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/rele

Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-12-09

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:00:01PM -, Daniel Reed wrote: > Package: ploticus 2.11-1 [2003-09-15] +1 vote > Package: GraphicsMagick 1.0.4-1 [2003-12-07] Just in case this is not vote-exempt: +1 vote rlc PS: how the checklist for good-to-go reviews coming along? -- Eschew obfuscation.

Re: /WINDOWS

Good idea, except that I'd personally prefer a mount point in stead of a symlink but that's just personal preference.. (Personally, I'd prefer that the Cygwin DLL make /WINDOWS a "magical" mountpoint to the likeness of /dev, /proc, etc. so as to make it completely transparent and make sure no use

Re: [ITP] ddd-3.3.8

This definitely has my vote - anything that makes debugging easier is a Good Thing IMHO. rlc On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:38:15PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > I would like to contribute and maintain ddd: > > http://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/ > > GNU DDD is a graphical front-end for comman

Re: [Review - Good to go] WordNet: An online lexical reference system [Needs 2 more votes]

me too - that makes three :) On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:55:40PM -0600, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: > I vote pro. > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:50:21PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > > Volker, > > > > I downloaded the source and binary packages, rebuilt from the source, > > ran the setup.hin

Re: [ITP] ImageMagick

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:07:59PM +1100, Gareth Pearce wrote: > > -Original Message- > > On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > > Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2003 10:30 PM > > Subject: Re: [ITP] ImageMagick > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:27:48AM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > > > I would like t

Re: [ITP] ImageMagick

I vote for this - this has my vote :) On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:27:48AM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > I would like to contribute and maintain ImageMagick: > > http://www.imagemagick.org/ > > ImageMagick 5.5.7 is a robust collection of tools and libraries offered > under a usage license

Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-11-26

On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 05:51:24PM -, Daniel Reed wrote: > rdesktop 1.3.0-1 [2003-11-08] > Description: client for Windows terminal server. Remote desktop display >Proposer: Jari Aalto >Proposal: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://tierra.dyndns.org:81/cygwin/rdesktop/rdeskt

Re: non-setup information in setup.hint (was Re: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22)

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:40:43PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > BTW, another piece of non-setup information that might be useful is an "up > for adoption" (or "orphaned") flag. Why not make it a setup flag? Make a nasty little pop-up box pop up when you install an orphaned package - something

Re: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:37:21PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 05:13:04PM -, Daniel Reed wrote: > > > splint Elfyn McBratney > > Has someone already proposed to tak

Re: Maintainers/Packages List, 2003-11-22

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 05:13:04PM -, Daniel Reed wrote: > splint Elfyn McBratney Has someone already proposed to take over maintainership of this package? If not, I'd be willing to do so.. rlc

Re: [ITP] GV: A PostScript and PDF viewer for X using 3d Athena Widgets

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:34:07PM +0100, Daniel Boesswetter wrote: > Harold L Hunt II wrote: > > >Dr. Volker Zell wrote: > > > >>-- cut here > >> > >>#/bin/bash > >>wget http://de.geocities.com/vzell1/cygwin/setup.zip > >>mv setup.zip setup.hint >

Re: Maintainers/Packages List

libpcre0 is built from pcre as well.. setup.ini/hint should note that. If it doesn't, there's a bug. rlc

Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:43:37PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:14:46PM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:30:32AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > >> Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du: > >

Re: Pending Packages List, 2003-10-21

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:30:32AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2003 um 19:00 schriebst du: > > This is the list of pending packages as of Tuesday, October 21, 2003. > > Package: d 1.2.0-1 > > Description: The Directory Lister > >Proposer: Yaakov Selkowitz > >Pro

Re: New Bash ready for upload

don't think any of those changes will want people to keep -13 rather than -15. I'll send an announcement shortly. rlc On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:58:22PM -0400, Daniel Reed wrote: > On 2003-10-20T15:22+0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > ) I've applied cgf's patch t

New Bash ready for upload

I've applied cgf's patch to Bash and test-driven it on my machine. The new version is available here: e148fb06b6c856a591a985d86361da15 *bash-2.05b-16-src.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/bash/bash-2.05b-16-src.tar.bz2 837f987c5c5cbceb773bf14a32060bac *bash-2.05b-16.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane

Re: bsd-games--one package or many?

Personally, I would certainly prefer splitting up the package - especially if the diff games have different dependencies. To download all the games, you can simply download the entire category, so I don't think we need a single package that depends on all the games. OTOH you might want such a p

Re: Bash programmable completion

In that case, by all means ;) rlc On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 01:18:24PM +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote on Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:37 PM: > > That would imply a patch to the Bash sources, wouldn't it? > > No. It is just a set of scripts

Re: Bash programmable completion

That would imply a patch to the Bash sources, wouldn't it? As Bash-3 is up-and-coming and I haven't even had the time to test-drive for the alpha yet, so I don't think I'll be putting much time into such a feature for the time being. Unless you have a different idea (a separate Bash or somesuch)

Re: New package: fltk

This has my vote :) (I guess that makes three - or perhaps four..) rlc On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 09:35:06PM +0200, A.R. Burgers wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to propose a new package, fltk-1.1.4. > The fltk homepage is at http://www.fltk.org/ > > These are the URL's of binary and source tarballs:

Re: [forwarded email: cygwin mirrors and installation]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:35:24PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 13:02, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > > You'll have to forgive my ignorance here, but is there some way to query > > ftp/http servers for how much load they're under? > > Not as a standard. > > Thinking out l

Re: [ITP] antiword-0.34

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:16:34AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > > > [snip] > > http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/antiword/antiword-0.34-1-src.tar.bz2 > > http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/antiword/antiword-0.34-1.tar.bz2 > > http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/a

Re: [ITP] antiword-0.34

Builds OK - interestingly, you don't use the generic script, but do use method 2.. (not a problem, IMHO). Binary package layout looks good - binary seems to work OK, though it doesn't take the graphics and the styles quite correctly. IMHO, that's not a show- stopper, as the file is very readable a

Re: [ITP] antiword-0.34

This has my vote On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 11:46:08AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Hallo, > > How about including Antiword in the netrelease? > Home -> http://www.antiword.org/ > > # antiword > sdesc: "A free MS Word reader" > ldesc: "Antiword converts the binary files from > Word 2, 6, 7, 97,

Re: Who is Cygwin's readline maintainer?

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:59:27AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > > Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > >There is a test version (5.0-alpha) of readline on which the test version > >(3.0-alpha) os Bash depends. As I'm having a wee bit of trouble with > >readline

Re: [ITP] d 1.2.0

Ehm.. how is this really different from: alias d='ls -l' ? rlc On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:58:03AM -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I would like to propose packaging 'd' for Cygwin distribution. > > 'd' is an alternative to ls -l (see setup.hi

Who is Cygwin's readline maintainer?

There is a test version (5.0-alpha) of readline on which the test version (3.0-alpha) os Bash depends. As I'm having a wee bit of trouble with readline (building it, for the moment) I'd like to coordinate my efforts with Cygwin's readline maintainer but I don't know who he/she is.. ping? rlc --

Re: GIFs in the tcm binary package

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 01:31:23PM +0200, Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote: > Hi Ronald, > > Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I just downloaded the binary package and found a lot of GIF files in > > them. I was wondering whether they were LZW-compress

GIFs in the tcm binary package [was: Re: Pending package status, 2003-09-29]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:45:18AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Package: tcm-2.20-1 > Sdesc:Toolkit for Conceptual Modeling (TCM) > Maintainer: Daniel Boesswetter > Votes:2 (Christopher and Lapo) > Reviewed: yes > Open because: Bugs in the distro. Fixe

Re: HEADSUP: Please resend all open ITPs, please review packages

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:37:57AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > The open ITPs I know so far are: > > Package: gmp-4.1.2-1 > Sdesc:GMP is a free library for arbitrary precision arithmetic > Maintainer: Lapo Luchini > Votes:2 > Reviewed: yes > Open beca

Re: [ITP] Check: A unit test framework for C

This has my vote, but: * the binary package doesn't follow the now-canonical directory layout (i.e. the docs are not in usr/share/doc * it might be a good idea to convert tutorial.lyx to something more readable (like plain text) * AFAIK, source packages (like binary packages) should be bzip2 c

Re: -bin packages?

I think that it some cases it may be needed and solve some packaging problems - I believe tetex is one of those cases (hence, IMHO, it should not be forbidden to do so). OTOH, even though most people will not be interested in the binaries in the pcre package (pcregrep and pcretest) I don't think t

Re: [ITP]libsigsegv-2.0 - New package for review

I get HTTP 404 errors on all of the files, using wget (transcript attached).. UI'd be very interested in this library, though (i.e. it has my vote) rlc On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:30:10PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > libsigsegv has been ported. Please review > See http://www.gnu.org/direc

Re: Aspell ... (ready?)

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:30:32AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:17:44AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > >I hate to do this at this late point (and I *really* hate it when people > > >do it to me) but I didn't

Re: Aspell ... (ready?)

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 10:46:47AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 01:24:20AM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote: > >inspired by this hat - I ask ... is there anything stoping us doing the > >coordinated release of the aspell and dictionary this weekend? I was fairly > >sure th

Re: Aspell ... (ready?)

them (mostly because I haven't installed Gareth's latest aspell yet). If regeneration is necessary, I'll do it shortly :) rlc On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:53:38PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > You haven't marked them as "test" while gcc-3.3.1 isn't c

Re: Aspell ... (ready?)

You haven't marked them as "test" while gcc-3.3.1 isn't canonical yet. It won't harm (much) I think, but it might if someone wants to go ahead and develop something with libaspell.. rlc On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 10:53:52PM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote: > > > inspired by this hat - I ask ... is there

Re: Aspell ... (ready?)

On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 01:24:20AM +1000, Gareth Pearce wrote: > > > -- > > > >++ > >| BB | <-- my spiffy new Cygwin Bash Maintainer Hat ;) > >| AA | > >| SS | > >| HH | > > +-Cygwin-+ > > | o o | > > | || | > > \ \__/ / > >

Re: [RFU] bash-2.05b-15

eared - no bash.exe anywhere.. Re-installing fixed the problem, but what worries me is that Setup never complained about anything.. rlc On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:33:25PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > I've made a new release of Bash available for upload. This fixes the problem &

Re: [RFU] bash-2.05b-15

DO NOT UPLOAD THIS YET! I've just installed it from my mirror, and am having weird problems I didn't have when I just manually installed it. I'm investigating it now. rlc On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:33:25PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > I've made a new releas

[RFU] bash-2.05b-15

I've made a new release of Bash available for upload. This fixes the problem recently reported on the Cygwin mailing list using a temporary patch to config.h.in (thanks to Corinna for the pointers). Please remove the -14 from the mirrors - prev should remain -13. I'll announce it as soon as it's

[RFU] bash-2.05b-14

The files for release number 14 of bash-2.05b are ready for upload: eedb57b2c64f37dab9c93ab4c665bd6a *bash-2.05b-14-src.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/bash/bash-2.05b-14-src.tar.bz2 7721e30fba3193f775eb3ab5cbecd9a0 *bash-2.05b-14.tar.bz2 http://rlc.unsane.co.uk/release/bash/bash-2.05b-14.t

[RFU] pcre-4.4-2

I'd patched my build script a while ago to put the Cygwin-specific README in the right place, so I though I might as well release 4.4-2 while I'm releasing bash-2.05b-14.. It's available here - no rush: it's just moving a file :) 6caa7bd5a40923571ab54422326fec34 *libpcre0-4.4-2.tar.bz2 http://rl

[PATCH] generic-readme: Cygwin version

Now that Cygwin is on 1.5.x and as 1.5.3 is the first canonical (non-test) one, I think this patch applies to generic-readme: HTH rlc --- generic-readme.orig 2003-09-12 15:39:20.522139200 +0200 +++ generic-readme 2003-09-12 15:39:40.330622400 +0200 @@ -3,11 +3,11 @@ Runtime requirement

Re: Anybody willing to take over bash maintainership?

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:46:08PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:41:19PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > I'd be happy to help, and I do use Bash on a daily basis :) > > Cool! Thanks for the offer. > >> However, you might

Re: Anybody willing to take over bash maintainership?

I'd be happy to help, and I do use Bash on a daily basis :) However, you might have to walk me through your patches a bit, because I'm not at all familiar with Bash' codebase.. rlc On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi, > > I don't recall if I asked this already

Re: new package proposal : CLISP

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:25:01AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Sam Steingold wrote: > > 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

Re: new package proposal : CLISP

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 10:59:24AM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote: > $ ls /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/ | wc -l > 41 > $ cygcheck -c | wc -l > 206 > so only 20% of packages supply this cygwin-specific README. You forgot the ones in /usr/doc/Cygwin - but that doesn't matter: the fact that not all packages have

Re: [RFU] pcre-4.4-1

which means my scripts to upload no longer work.. rlc On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:46:42PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > I've just wrapped the pcre-4.4 packages for the newly release version of PCRE > but I don't seem to have access to my ISP's FTP server right now. If an

[RFU] pcre-4.4-1

I've just wrapped the pcre-4.4 packages for the newly release version of PCRE but I don't seem to have access to my ISP's FTP server right now. If anyone wants this uploaded before my ISP makes the FTP server available again, I'll be happy to send the files over by private E-mail. 4.4-1 is build

[ITP] cgdb

A while ago, I found out about this nifty piece of software in the french Linux magazine (or "Login:" - don't remember which) so I decided to try it out - and liked it. cgdb is a curses interface for gdb. It's prerry simple to handle for people who know vi (such as myself) and requires no patchi

[RFU] new pcre packages

I don't know whether RFU is a known acronym.. anyways: Ready for upload: pcre packages conformant to FHS (AFAICT) The only one that actually changes is the -doc, but hey.. Built against 1.5.2, of course. No other changes Available here: 700204763641f9a8d90d822353329874 *libpcre0-4.3-4.tar.bz2 b1

Re: [RFU] new pcre packages

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:47:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 06:36:20PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > I don't know whether RFU is a known acronym.. anyways: > > > > Ready for upload: pcre packages conformant to FHS (AFAICT) >

Re: pcre-config missing from pcre packages

t; On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:59:20PM +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > > > >On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > > > > > > >> The pcre-config script is (IMHO logicall

Re: pcre-config missing from pcre packages

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:55:38PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > FYI, this was never announced. > Igor > P.S. For those annoyed at the stream of "not announced" messages -- I'm > about to majorly upgrade my system, and trying to find the release notes. I know - I'm waiting for the 23rd (i

Re: [ITP] cgdb

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:45:48AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 04:26:52PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > >A while ago, I found out about this nifty piece of software in the french > >Linux magazine (or "Login:" - don't remember

Re: [ITP] wtf

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:21:35PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:56:57AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > > Great, that makes 3 votes. Now all I have to do is get someone to review > >

micro-patch to generic-readme

This is just nitpicking, mostly, but there's a slight type-o in the generic readme.. --- generic-readme~ 2003-08-04 16:19:27.313059200 +0200 +++ generic-readme 2003-08-04 16:27:25.190212800 +0200 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ http://... Canonical download: - ftp://... + ftp://... --

Re: [ITP] wtf

pick: Coolness You Get Where Initially None (mine) Can You Guess What's Implemented Next (mine) Cramming Your Gut With Indispensable Necessities (Gary R. Van Sickle) Cygwin: Your Greatest Winner In Necessities (Ronald Landheer-Cieslak) Can't You Get With It, Ninnies? (Christopher Fay

Re: [ITP] wtf

Has my vote, Just a small note, though: most of the OLOCA acronyms are a lot more verbose than their wtf counterparts, and some of them are duplicates. would it be possible to adapt your Perl script to weed out the (exact) duplicates? JAT (*) rlc (*) JAT: Just A Thought - neither in wtf nor th

Re: Proposal: psutils (again)

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:11:48PM +0200, Daniel Bößwetter wrote: > Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > >Just one remark: the source package contains the patch at its root and not > >in CYGWIN-PATCHES where, AFAIK, it's supposed to be (for packages not > >using build sc

Re: Proposal: psutils (again)

Just one remark: the source package contains the patch at its root and not in CYGWIN-PATCHES where, AFAIK, it's supposed to be (for packages not using build scripts) Other than that, I've tried out the tools in the ISO-C99 specification (nice & big file) and found no problems :) rlc BTW: would

Re: Proposal: psutils (again)

You have my vote :) Just a question: did/do you build against 1.3.x or 1.5.x? If the latter, the "test" line in setup.hint should stay for the time being. (IMHO) I've downloaded the packs & will take a look at them - I have some compiler-waiting to do anyway.. rlc On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 06:08

Re: Pending package status (20 Jul 2003)

> @ Aspell > > date : 07 Apr 2003 > version: 0.50.3-1 > status : reviewed (downloads for 1.5 only) > notes : http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-04/msg00155.html > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-04/msg00356.html > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-06/msg00239.html

Re: Aspell review (was Re: Pending package status (14 Jul 2003))

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > > Anyways, yes import/static libs and headers go into the -devel > > package. Including libtool files... > In that case, I'll update the build script if I have the time bef

Re: Aspell review (was Re: Pending package status (14 Jul 2003))

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > I have one small question about the packaging, though: shouldn't the > > import & libtool library be in the aspell-dev package in stead of the > > libaspell0 packa

Re: [ITP] jgraph

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > > If I have the right to vote, it gets my very first vote :) > > (But I actually don't know if I can vote.. I *think* I can since I'm a > > package maintainer n

  1   2   >