[HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Hi, even though Cygwin 1.7 is not yet really ok for a main release, I think that it's time to start a release area for it, so we can start to build Cygwin applications specificially for 1.7. A major advantage is that we will get much more testing, especially when using features which are not at a

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 2 14:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Having said that, I would like to ask especially you package maintainers > to set up a separate machine or a separate cygwin directory for the 1.7 > release. Right now we have the problem that the mount points in the > registry are still shared between a

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: I have applied a preliminary patch to Cygwin which allows to load the mount entries from /etc/fstab and /etc/fstab.. If none of these files is available, the DLL falls back to reading the mount points from the registry. I like this. A lot. Cygwin finds the fstab file

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

For a start, please note that this patch is just preliminary. The actual problem is still one of the problems I noted in my mail http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2008-03/msg0.html, to which I didn't get a reply, except from Brian. - The POSIX path of mount points is restricted to 256

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:42:20AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >For a start, please note that this patch is just preliminary. > >The actual problem is still one of the problems I noted in my mail >http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2008-03/msg0.html, to which I >didn't get a reply, excep

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 3 09:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:42:20AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >- Do we drop registry mount points and store mount points in future > > in fstab-like files as, say, /etc/fstab (system mount points) and > > ~/.fstab (user mount points)?

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > [snip] > > >>> Get own path ==> C:\\cygwin\\bin\\cygwin1.dll > > >>> Where's fstab? ==> C:\\cygwin\\etc\\fstab > > >> > > >> So, it implicitly computes where / is? > > > > > >No, it doesn't. It just snips away the last two path components and >

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 3 11:16, Igor Peshansky wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > [snip] > > > >>> Get own path ==> C:\\cygwin\\bin\\cygwin1.dll > > > >>> Where's fstab? ==> C:\\cygwin\\etc\\fstab > > > >> > > > >> So, it implicitly computes where / is? > > > > > > > >No, it doesn't.

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

[#$%^! I had a reply-to set in my original reply. I removed it. Please reply to *this* mail. Thanks.] On Apr 3 11:16, Igor Peshansky wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > [snip] > > > >>> Get own path ==> C:\\cygwin\\bin\\cygwin1.dll > > > >>> Where's fstab? ==> C:\

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 3 17:38, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 3 11:16, Igor Peshansky wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > >>> Get own path ==> C:\\cygwin\\bin\\cygwin1.dll > > > > >>> Where's fstab? ==> C:\\cygwin\\etc\\fstab > > > > >> > > > > >> So, it implicitl

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 04:19:58PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 3 09:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:42:20AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >- Do we drop registry mount points and store mount points in future >> > in fstab-like files as, say, /etc/

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 3 12:11, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 04:19:58PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Do you think that / should be free as today: > > > > C:\arbitrary\useless\new\path / ntfs binary 0 0 > > > >or do you think an automatic approach as the above > > > > root / ntfs bina

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:26:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 3 12:11, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 04:19:58PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >Do you think that / should be free as today: >> > >> > C:\arbitrary\useless\new\path / ntfs binary 0 0 >> > >> >or

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 3 12:59, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:26:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 3 12:11, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 04:19:58PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> >Do you think that / should be free as today: > >> > > >> > C:\ar

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Christopher Faylor wrote: Why do we need a fstab.$SID and linux doesn't need this? Well, I like to create user mounts for each user (Guest, Administrator, me) like this: mount -f -u -b "C:/Documents and Settings//My Documents" "/mydocs" mount -f -u -b "C:/Documents and Settings//Desktop" "/

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Apr 3 09:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: For 1.7, I think we ought to decouple /bin <> /usr/bin and /lib <> /usr/lib. The rationale for keeping those linked no longer applies in the modern setup.exe world. Full ACK! However, this needs a bit of careful revisiting of

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Igor Peshansky wrote: So would it make sense to put the root mount info in the same directory as cygwin1.dll? I know it doesn't belong in /bin, but playing with relative paths is even more error-prone. MSYS has been doing the "find msys dll, then locate ../../etc/fstab" thing for years. Of a

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: /etc/fstab - Yes and get rid of the registry entirely ACK. Upgrading pain could be eased if setup.exe (or a postinstall script, perhaps) detected that /etc/fstab doesn't exist, and created it from the registry entries.

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:01:37PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Apr 3 09:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> For 1.7, I think we ought to decouple /bin <> /usr/bin and /lib <> >>> /usr/lib. The rationale for keeping those linked no longer applies in >>> the modern se

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:22:51PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>/etc/fstab - Yes and get rid of the registry entirely >> ACK. > > Upgrading pain could be eased if setup.exe (or a postinstall script, > perhaps) detected that /etc/fstab doesn't exist, and created i

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

[responding to the thread which started it all] On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >- We create a ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin-1.7 dir. > >- Under that dir, we create the full release directory structure as it > exists in the parallel cygwin dir, except for the "cygwi

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 06:01:37PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: Yep. A few things off the top of my head: 1) the shells need to install both in /bin and /usr/bin. This is up to the individual maintainers when they build their -1.7 versions, but to take on super-duper

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 3 20:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: > [responding to the thread which started it all] > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >- We create a ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin-1.7 dir. > > > >- Under that dir, we create the full release directory structure as it > > e

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 3 17:46, Charles Wilson wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> Why do we need a fstab.$SID and linux doesn't need this? > > Well, I like to create user mounts for each user (Guest, Administrator, me) > like this: > > mount -f -u -b "C:/Documents and Settings//My Documents" "/mydocs" > mou

RE: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Hi All... I like this!!! > Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:42:20 +0200 > From: corinna > Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area > > For a start, please note that this patch is just preliminary. > > The actual problem is still one of the problems

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 4 14:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 3 17:46, Charles Wilson wrote: > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> Why do we need a fstab.$SID and linux doesn't need this? > > > > Well, I like to create user mounts for each user (Guest, Administrator, me) > > like this: > > > > mount -f -u -b "C

RE: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > [snip] > I don't understand this. As discussed somewhat later, if the root dir > follows automatically from where the DLL itself resides. Which, btw., > the current code doesn't do right. I called GetModuleFileName(NULL) > which returns the path

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:34:50AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >As far as I understand it, the current Cygwin runtime architecture uses shared >memory for those Cygwin processes attached to the Cygwin DLL, and a static >registry location for its static mount table. As already discussed, the

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 4 14:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 3 20:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > [responding to the thread which started it all] > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >- We create a ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin-1.7 dir. > > > > > >- Under that dir, we cre

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 06:26:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 4 14:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Apr 3 20:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > [responding to the thread which started it all] >> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > >- We create a f

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 8 13:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 06:26:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 4 14:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> On Apr 3 20:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> > [responding to the thread which started it all] > >> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:35:51PM

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 13:26:46 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 06:26:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>I'm just not sure we should really call it "cygwin-1.7". What would >>be a good name, which does not refer to the actual version number? >> >> "Cygwin" with upper

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 8 13:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 06:26:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >On Apr 4 14:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> On Apr 3 20:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> > [responding to the

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:34:03PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >If we do choose to name the release directory "cygwin-2008", we probably >ought to try to get cygwin-1.7 out the door before, say, Christmas, tho. > Uh oh. I'm hyperventilating now. Actually, given what is going into cygwin-1.7, th

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 8 14:41, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 8 13:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> cygwin-xp? cygwin-2008? > > > >cysta? :) > > > >cygwin-2008 isn't bad, though. > > > >> cygwin-nextgen? > > > >Or just cygwin-new, maybe

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 8 14:43, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:34:03PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > >If we do choose to name the release directory "cygwin-2008", we probably > >ought to try to get cygwin-1.7 out the door before, say, Christmas, tho. > > > > Uh oh. I'm hyperventilating

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Why, we could always name the next versions "cygwin-newer", > "cygwin-evenmorenew", "cygwin-newerthannew" and > "cygwin-reallyreallynew-imeanit". > > > How about cygwinng? > > With a dash? cygwin-ng? Like syslog-ng. I was going to suggest this > too, but I didn't wan

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:07:26PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 8 14:41, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >On Apr 8 13:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> cygwin-xp? cygwin-2008? >> > >> >cysta? :) >> > >> >cygwin-2008 is

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 8 14:16, Brian Dessent wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Why, we could always name the next versions "cygwin-newer", > > "cygwin-evenmorenew", "cygwin-newerthannew" and > > "cygwin-reallyreallynew-imeanit". > > > > > How about cygwinng? > > > > With a dash? cygwin-ng? Like syslog-

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 8 17:39, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:07:26PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >With a dash? cygwin-ng? Like syslog-ng. I was going to suggest this > >too, but I didn't want to copy the naming too bluntly. > > We actually use "ng" internally to Netapp. I actua

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 8 23:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 8 14:16, Brian Dessent wrote: > > Okay, so, several years ago setup.exe HEAD was modified to look for > > "release" and "release_legacy" as the base dirname for packages > > depending on whether it was running on 9x/ME or NT/2k/etc. I understand >

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Sorry, but I didn't remember that. Why didn't you just tell us? I thought we were talking about two different things. As I see it, here are the *conceptual* things we're dealing with: A) We want to have a tree of packages that is still usable for users of 9x/ME after

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 8 16:27, Brian Dessent wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Sorry, but I didn't remember that. Why didn't you just tell us? > > I thought we were talking about two different things. > > As I see it, here are the *conceptual* things we're dealing with: > > A) We want to have a tree of

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Yes. I'm just wondering if we could do without the final rename of the > directories. The Cygwin release area isn't that small, > 4 Gigs. A > simple top-level directory rename will force all mirrors world-wide to > copy the whole area. Twice, because we will have two

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL Sounds fine to me as well. Brian

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 9 05:09, Brian Dessent wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Yes. I'm just wondering if we could do without the final rename of the > > directories. The Cygwin release area isn't that small, > 4 Gigs. A > > simple top-level directory rename will force all mirrors world-wide to > > copy

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL > >Sounds fine to me as well. It's ok. cgf

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:31:39 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >>Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL >> >>Sounds fine to me as well. > >It's ok. Works for me. One question: the

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 9 11:04, Charles Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:31:39 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > >>Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>>My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL > >> > >>Sounds fine to me as w

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 9 10:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL > > > >Sounds fine to me as well. > > It's ok. Oh, btw., can we really just use symlinks to

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 9 18:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 9 10:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > > >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >>My favorite would be release-2. It has nothing to do with the DLL > > > > > >Sounds fine to me as well. > > >

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Forgive me, but I stopped following this thread a while back. I trust you all to work out the best method. When all of the issues are sorted out, can you please post a summary for package maintainers of what we need to do? Thanks, Andrew.

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 11 12:27, Andrew Schulman wrote: > Forgive me, but I stopped following this thread a while back. I trust you all > to work out the best method. > > When all of the issues are sorted out, can you please post a summary for > package > maintainers of what we need to do? Of course. I will s

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Brian, could you please prepare a temporary setup-1.7.exe which > only downloads from the release-2 area? Okay, I uploaded which fetches setup-2.{ini,bz2}. It identifies itself as version 2.590-1.7special on the splash page so that we c

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 11 18:47, Brian Dessent wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Brian, could you please prepare a temporary setup-1.7.exe which > > only downloads from the release-2 area? > > Okay, I uploaded which fetches > setup-2.{ini,bz2}. It identifies itself as vers

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 12 13:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 11 18:47, Brian Dessent wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > > Brian, could you please prepare a temporary setup-1.7.exe which > > > only downloads from the release-2 area? > > > > Okay, I uploaded which fet

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

> Corinna Vinschen writes: > I guess we'll wait a day until this all settles on the mirrors and > then I'll create an announcement for the developers and package > maintainers. An updated maintainerlist would also be handy ... > Thanks, > Corinna Ciao Volker

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 12 14:23, Dr. Volker Zell wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen writes: > > > I guess we'll wait a day until this all settles on the mirrors and > > then I'll create an announcement for the developers and package > > maintainers. > > An updated maintainerlist would also be handy ...

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > When I start setup-1.7, it seems to find the already existing c:/cygwin > installation. Even though I choose "C:/cygwin-2" as installation path, > the new setup-2.ini content is compared against the already existing > installation. The result is that setup-1.7 offers to

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 12 05:45, Brian Dessent wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > When I start setup-1.7, it seems to find the already existing c:/cygwin > > installation. Even though I choose "C:/cygwin-2" as installation path, > > the new setup-2.ini content is compared against the already existing > > ins

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Corinna Vinschen on 4/12/2008 9:15 AM: | | Probably we will still need *some* registry entry. Setup could create | one for its own purpose, just to find the installation path. I agree. Besides, based on the question on the main list -

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I also found, when setup doesn't have the mount points it doesn't seem > to be able to take the /etc/setup/installed.db from the path entered as > root directory. It installs happily all base packages again a second > time. > > Probably we will still need *some* registry

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:13:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 9 18:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Apr 9 10:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >> > >Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > >>My favorite would be release-2. It has

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:13:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 9 18:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Apr 9 10:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:09:46AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >> > >Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > >>My favorite would be release-2. It has

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 12 23:43, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:13:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >I've now created a release-2 area. I used a somewhat intermediary > >approach. The dirs are real dirs, the tar.bz2 files are symlinks > >to the release area, the setup.hint and md5.su

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 13 00:44, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I added setup-2.ini creation to the Makefile which creates setup.ini. > > (and commented out the cron entry that you had which was also doing > this) Thanks, I removed the crontab entry entirely. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please,

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 12 16:02, Brian Dessent wrote: > Here's what I had in mind for the logic: > > On startup, setup looks for $newkey. If found, it uses the Win32 path > stored there as the starting value for the root dir/install location. > If not found, it looks at $oldkey. If that's not found, it uses a

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:42:46AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >We would need to transfer them to the new place or we stick to the >"Cygnus Solutions" for backward compatibility. I'm not sure we still >need the Program Options thingy. I never heard about anybody actually >using heap_slop_in_mb

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:03:14AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 12 23:43, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:13:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >I've now created a release-2 area. I used a somewhat intermediary >> >approach. The dirs are real dirs, the tar.bz

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 13 00:44, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> I added setup-2.ini creation to the Makefile which creates setup.ini. >> >> (and commented out the cron entry that you had which was also doing >> this) > >Thanks, I removed the crontab

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 13 15:35, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:42:46AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >We would need to transfer them to the new place or we stick to the > >"Cygnus Solutions" for backward compatibility. I'm not sure we still > >need the Program Options thingy. I never

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:56:28AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 13 15:35, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:42:46AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >We would need to transfer them to the new place or we stick to the >> >"Cygnus Solutions" for backward compatibility

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Brian Dessent wrote: > Unresolved issues with this plan: > > - What are we going to do about text/binary mode? To maintain the > setting, setup would have to be taught to parse/write fstab. Ugh. Plan > B would be to say that if you want textmode you have to edit fstab > you

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Christopher Faylor wrote: > Yes, I know. I just don't think it clarifies anything to put a "Red > Hat" in the registry. I was thinking "Cygwin" would be better as well, but since it is supposed to be a two-level heirarchy how about "HK{LM,CU}\Software\Cygwin Project\Cygwin". It has always seeme

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Igor Peshansky wrote: > But one thing to consider is that by adding a registry key, we're setting > things up for one dominant installation of Cygwin. So people juggling > multiple installations really *will* have to go edit the registry to > switch -- no more nice "mount -m" approach, since the

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 14 19:24, Igor Peshansky wrote: > Hmm. Even now, one does not have to edit the registry to switch from > binary mode to text mode -- you just need to re-mount with the appropriate > option. I assume the same will hold for the /etc/fstab approach. No, how should it? Of course you have to

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 14 20:02, Brian Dessent wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > Yes, I know. I just don't think it clarifies anything to put a "Red > > Hat" in the registry. > > I was thinking "Cygwin" would be better as well, but since it is > supposed to be a two-level heirarchy how about > "HK{LM,CU}

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 15 02:29, Brian Dessent wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we > > do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? Should > > they be moved to the new registry key? If yes, should the postinstall > > scri

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we > do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? Should > they be moved to the new registry key? If yes, should the postinstall > script I created a couple of days ago also move them?

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 15 11:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 15 02:29, Brian Dessent wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > > Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we > > > do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? Should > > > they be moved to the new r

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 15 10:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 14 20:02, Brian Dessent wrote: > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > > Yes, I know. I just don't think it clarifies anything to put a "Red > > > Hat" in the registry. > > > > I was thinking "Cygwin" would be better as well, but since it is > > su

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 15 10:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Apr 14 20:02, Brian Dessent wrote: >>>Christopher Faylor wrote: Yes, I know. I just don't think it clarifies anything to put a "Red Hat" in the registry. >>> >>>I was thinking

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we > >do with the "Program Options" and the two "heap_foo" values? > > I'd like to keep the "Program Options" and n

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

2008/4/15, Corinna Vinschen: > On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I also object to using "Red Hat" as the "owner" [...] > > Red Hat *is* the owner of the code, regardless of the registry key you > want to use. I know that you have mixed feelings about Red Hat, > however, assuming t

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 05:44:00PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 15 10:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>Having said that, should we really rename the registry keys, what do we >>>do with the "Program Options" and the two "

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 15 13:59, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 05:44:00PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Red Hat *is* the owner of the code, regardless of the registry key you > >want to use. I know that you have mixed feelings about Red Hat, > >however, assuming the code is owned by the

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen wrote: I will not further argue against using "Cygwin Project\Cygwin" or just "Cygwin". I guess the one name no one can strongly argue against is the one we're using right now: "perfect" or "outdated" as it may be, it has at least one reason to be (retro-compatibility).

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Corinna Vinschen on 4/15/2008 12:38 PM: | | Since everybody else seems to dislike the company name in the registry | key, I will not further argue against using "Cygwin Project\Cygwin" or | just "Cygwin". I hate unnecessary spaces. Can

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Eric Blake wrote: > I hate unnecessary spaces. Can we go with "Cygwin" rather than "Cygwin > Project", so that scripts using /proc/registry don't have to worry about > the space? The only reason I suggested "Cygwin Project\Cygwin" is that it's supposed to be a two level hierarchy, company\produc

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 15 19:28, Brian Dessent wrote: > So, with that in > mind, are there any objections to simply HK{LM,CU}\Software\Cygwin? Just go ahead. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Apr 15 20:51, Lapo Luchini wrote: > PS: my only WinXP box is still waiting for his motherboard back from RMA... > I'll try qemu to test cygwin-1.7 and, if it's not too slow, produce updated > packages for both 1.5 and 1.7 (or is 1.7 "near enough" that is better to > update that first?). We w

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:39:16AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Apr 15 20:51, Lapo Luchini wrote: >> PS: my only WinXP box is still waiting for his motherboard back from RMA... >> I'll try qemu to test cygwin-1.7 and, if it's not too slow, produce updated >> packages for both 1.5 and 1.7 (o

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:24:46PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:39:16AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>On Apr 15 20:51, Lapo Luchini wrote: >>> PS: my only WinXP box is still waiting for his motherboard back from RMA... >>> I'll try qemu to test cygwin-1.7 and, if

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Christopher Faylor wrote: Since most of what I did was automated, I probably ended up deleting too much. Please take a look at the package directories that you maintain and verify that the release-2 directory contains something that makes sense. If we find a problem, how should we fix it? For

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 02:46:28PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: >> Since most of what I did was automated, I probably ended up deleting too >> much. Please take a look at the package directories that you maintain >> and verify that the release-2 directory contains somet

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:56:17PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Apparently there is a bug in this version of unionfs, though. If you >try to recreate a missing file by just copying it in or touching it you >get a "File exists" error and that's not right. You aren't supposed to >have to know

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Christopher Faylor wrote: I think the simplest thing to do is remove the test from setup.hint. It's all test anyway. Anyone who is using this should be extremely aware of the fact that it's unstable. OK. Changes I made in the release-2 area: 1) inetutils: made test release 1.5-3 current 2)

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Christopher Faylor wrote: Please hold off making any changes to anything in the release-2 area. I want to try another unionfs implementation which doesn't seem to have this problem. Whoops. Don't worry, you can blow away my changes. I've got a handy email that lists all the changes I made.

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 06:43:35PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: >>Please hold off making any changes to anything in the release-2 area. >>I want to try another unionfs implementation which doesn't seem to have >>this problem. > >Whoops. > >Don't worry, you can blow away

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Christopher Faylor wrote: I think I recreated the area complete with your changes. Let me know if I screwed anything up. Nope, all my changes are still there. The weird behavior with 'find' is still there, too. :-( This making changes to an area which is actively being rsynced and potenti

  1   2   >