[ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

Christopher Faylor schrieb: On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 02:07:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:46:41PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: it seems there was the -mno-cygwin flag used for the mhmash library build and it isn't a Cygwin version at all: $ cygcheck /usr/bin/cygmha

Re: mhash-0.9.1-1

Hello Lapo, > Well I guess I will at least try harder porting djbdns, then, I really > miss a local DNS resolver on my laptop 0=) 1. caching DNS server Maradns: http://www.maradns.org/ it is under active development and the upstream maintainer supports Cygwin (by request, he don't uses Cygwin hi

RE: mhash-0.9.1-1

Just to complete the list: http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html Gerrit P. Haase wrote on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:53 AM: > Hello Lapo, > >> Well I guess I will at least try harder porting djbdns, then, I >> really miss a local DNS resolver on my laptop 0=) > > 1. caching DNS serve

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

-devel), because both are very small. Will be ready for review tommorrow. well, today actually. wget -q -O - http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/mhash/get.sh | sh i.e. http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/mhash/setup.hint http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/mhash/mhash-0.9.1-1.tar.bz2 http

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:44:40PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >>I want to take over and maintain the cygwin version of mhash-0.9.1 >>It was probably just an oversight, because their DLL building >>instructions are from the CYGWIN FAQ, just wrongly applied. >>Builds out of the box after removing the

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:44:40PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: > >>I want to take over and maintain the cygwin version of mhash-0.9.1 > >>It was probably just an oversight, because their DLL building > >>instructions are from the CYGWIN FAQ, just wrong

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:37:05PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:44:40PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >> >>I want to take over and maintain the cygwin version of mhash-0.9.1 >> >>It was probably just an oversight, because

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:37:05PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 08:44:40PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: > >> >>I want to take over and maintain the cygwin version of mh

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Reini Urban wrote: > claim, claim... please don't pull. Agh, you beat me on time ;-) Well I guess I will at least try harder porting djbdns, then, I really miss a local DNS resolver on my laptop 0=) (and what should they have in common? well.. djbd

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

Lapo Luchini wrote: > Well I guess I will at least try harder porting djbdns, then, I really > miss a local DNS resolver on my laptop 0=) > > (and what should they have in common? well.. djbdns is by DJB, which > is a crypto expert himself... ok, ok, almost nothing in common) Did we already have

Resolvers (Re: mhash-0.9.1-1)

Gerrit P. Haase schrieb: Already ported: BIND. Why don't you use bind? http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/DNS/bind-9.2.2/ Because most of us don't like bind that much, I assume. There is the Lightweiht Resolver Daemon lwresd included with the bind-9 sources. 2. authoritative-only DNS server Powerdns: An

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

expected, I'll upload ASAP. Ah, and if you upload it please remove mhash-devel, since mhash-0.9.1-1 includes the devel stuff also. I already wrote it, but double is better. Or leave it as [prev]. As you want. (I don't think so) And gerrit or volker are busy... -- Reini Urban

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

Reini Urban wrote: Ah, and if you upload it please remove mhash-devel, since mhash-0.9.1-1 includes the devel stuff also. I already wrote it, but double is better. Or leave it as [prev]. As you want. (I don't think so) No, removed it and changed the setup.hint you included to reflect that

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:01:16AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >Reini Urban wrote: > >>Ah, and if you upload it please remove mhash-devel, since mhash-0.9.1-1 >>includes the devel stuff also. I already wrote it, but double is better. >>Or leave it as [prev]. As you

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

Christopher Faylor schrieb: On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:01:16AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: Reini Urban wrote: Ah, and if you upload it please remove mhash-devel, since mhash-0.9.1-1 includes the devel stuff also. I already wrote it, but double is better. Or leave it as [prev]. As you want. (I

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

are very small. > > > > Will be ready for review tommorrow. > > > > > > well, today actually. > > > > > > wget -q -O - http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/mhash/get.sh | sh > > > > > > Gerrit, if you can verify that this works as

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

- http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/mhash/get.sh | sh >> > >> > >> > Gerrit, if you can verify that this works as expected, I'll upload >> > ASAP. >> >> Ah, and if you upload it please remove mhash-devel, since mhash-0.9.1-1 >> includes

Re: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1

Christopher Faylor wrote: Isn't the usual solution for this to provide an empty mhash-devel package as [curr]? That way people will get mhash-devel uninstalled from their systems, rather than having mhash and mhash-devel share files (which will be removed if mhash-devel *is* uninstalled manually l

Re: Resolvers (Re: mhash-0.9.1-1)

On Oct 6 12:48, Reini Urban wrote: > Gerrit P. Haase schrieb: > >Already ported: BIND. Why don't you use bind? > >http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/DNS/bind-9.2.2/ > > Because most of us don't like bind that much, I assume. I guess using bind is some sort of a habit. The same goes for sendmail. You t

Re: Resolvers (Re: mhash-0.9.1-1)

At 12:55 PM 10/6/2004 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Oct 6 12:48, Reini Urban wrote: >> Gerrit P. Haase schrieb: >> >Already ported: BIND. Why don't you use bind? >> >http://anfaenger.de/cygwin/DNS/bind-9.2.2/ >> >> Because most of us don't like bind that much, I assume. > >I guess using bin

DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Dessent wrote: > Did we already have a DJB licensensing-discuss thread? I wouldn't > exactly call djbware "free" software, but I'm also not familiar with the > requirements of Cygwin packages. Would it even be allowed? Mhh.. I don't remember..

Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

Lapo Luchini wrote: > Mhh.. I don't remember... > Yes, actually we had (and I did also do some reply.. 0_0) > > > ...but that was on QMail, which has "Information for distributors" at > , while no si

Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Dessent wrote: > Still, I doubt it qualifies as OSI-approved by any stretch of the > imagination. It doesn't even have a copyright notice in the source nor in the package, maybe it qualifies as Public Domani, but I guess an email to DJB could cl

Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

On Oct 6 11:20, Lapo Luchini wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Brian Dessent wrote: > > Still, I doubt it qualifies as OSI-approved by any stretch of the > > imagination. > > It doesn't even have a copyright notice in the source nor in the > package, maybe it qualifies

Re: DJB licensing issues [Was: [ITP] mhash-0.9.1-1]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Oct 6 11:20, Lapo Luchini wrote: > >> I guess an email to DJB could clarify it a bit... > > It's essential to do this. A source code with no copyright or > licensing information at all is highly lawless ground. Dunno about