-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Charles (and me) used to use a separate directory for the headers
which I still would prefer:
But there's no netpbm-config script or the like, so how would a
dependant package know to look for the headers there?
FWIW,
Yaakov S wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Charles (and me) used to use a separate directory for the headers
which I still would prefer:
But there's no netpbm-config script or the like, so how would a
dependant package know to look for the headers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Due to popular request:
http://cygwin-ports.sourceforge.net/install/temp/netpbm/netpbm-10.28-1-src.tar.bz2
http://cygwin-ports.sourceforge.net/install/temp/netpbm/netpbm-10.28-1.tar.bz2
Yaakov S wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Due to popular request:
http://cygwin-ports.sourceforge.net/install/temp/netpbm/netpbm-10.28-1-src.tar.bz2
http://cygwin-ports.sourceforge.net/install/temp/netpbm/netpbm-10.28-1.tar.bz2
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 06:04:55PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
But everyone will complain if they can't run the package after they install
it. I think we should absolutely avoid the latter case. The former
we can deal with as required.
What's
At 07:44 AM 4/29/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 06:04:55PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
But everyone will complain if they can't run the package after they install
it. I think we should absolutely avoid the latter case. The
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
At 07:44 AM 4/29/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote:
-8-
The point is, the extra path walks are
expensive.
Quite true. But I would say that Corinna's suggestion, from a strict
technical perspective, makes netpbm in a different bin directory usable
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 06:04:55PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
But everyone will complain if they can't run the package after they install
it. I think we should absolutely avoid the latter case. The former
we can deal with as required.
What's
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, as I described in the other message, there are only three
patches.
Ok, I must have looked over it.
One, which creates a Makefile.config,
Two, a cygwin-specific README file.
Three, GNU shtool, to create a shadow tree in which to build.
Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wonderful, please do.
Ok. I've been away from email, as you noticed, and will be back
tonight (CET).
I'll have to consider if any big problems arise, because this mustn't
turn into a time sink.
BTW, I have had a private version of netpbm, packaged
Gareth Pearce wrote:
As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't
there a limit to the number of files and/or directory entries
in any one directory on win32?
As has already been said, not past the root. However directory search
time is O(N) on FAT, vs (IIRC) O(logN) on
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:46 AM
...
But cygwin is used on
both NTFS and
FAT...
Which is the killer question: is adding a directory to the search path
more or less of a performance hog than adding x-100
Charles Wilson wrote:
LDSHLIB = -shared -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base (line 460)
- you'll wnat to change that to -shared -Wl,--export-all
since (1) auto-image-base is no longer recommended, and
(2) export-all so you can take advantage of binutils' auto-export
Robert Collins wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:46 AM
...
But cygwin is used on
both NTFS and
FAT...
Which is the killer question: is adding a directory to the search path
more or less of a
Charles Wilson wrote:
As promised, take a look:
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/testing/
The -src package contains --- a patch, which does the following three
things:
If you go back to
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/testing/
you'll see I've
At 01:40 PM 4/27/2002, Robert Collins wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:46 AM
...
But cygwin is used on
both NTFS and
FAT...
Which is the killer question: is adding a directory to the search path
Hi list,
Today I've taken a look at the netpbm package. Pierre Humblet, who's
listed as Cygwin porter, is not considering to contribute it as Cygwin
package, but was fine with me packaging it.
I've only done a few quick tests, from ps-pnm-png. URLs below.
Cast your votes now.
Greetings,
Jan.
Wonderful, please do.
BTW, I have had a private version of netpbm, packaged in a
'setup-compatible' way, for some time now. When I get home, I'll put my
version somewhere that you can access; you may want to expropriate some
of my patches...
Also, which png have you linked against? 1.0.12,
Oh, yeah, one other thing: runtime requirement is probably either
libpng2 or libpng10, not 'libpng'. Build requirement is either libpng
or libpng10-devel. (the first of each pair if 1.0.12, the second of
each pair if 1.0.13).
Okay, *two* more things: you may want to package this the right
Jan schrieb:
Today I've taken a look at the netpbm package. Pierre Humblet, who's
listed as Cygwin porter, is not considering to contribute it as Cygwin
package, but was fine with me packaging it.
I've only done a few quick tests, from ps-pnm-png. URLs below.
Cast your votes now.
Thumbs
Charles schrieb:
Okay, *two* more things: you may want to package this the right way
from the beginning -- and avoid the pain I (and everyone else by proxy)
went thru. Split out your DLLs from everything else and have two
packages...'netpbm' and 'libpnmXX'. That way, when user bob builds
At 02:38 PM 4/26/2002, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Jan schrieb:
Today I've taken a look at the netpbm package. Pierre Humblet, who's
listed as Cygwin porter, is not considering to contribute it as Cygwin
package, but was fine with me packaging it.
I've only done a few quick tests, from
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
I'm not sure why this makes more sense for this package than it would for
any package. So, to me, this is not a requirement for generating this
package or at least not at this time, unless somebody can point out how
this package would be considered
At 03:57 PM 4/26/2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
I'm not sure why this makes more sense for this package than it would for
any package. So, to me, this is not a requirement for generating this package or at
least not at this time, unless somebody can point
Earnie Boyd wrote:
So, I would like to see /usr/netpbm/bin.
But I don't want to go all-out on the separate package tree idea.
NO:
/usr/netpbm/bin
/usr/netpbm/lib
/usr/netpbm/include
/usr/netpbm/man
/usr/netpbm/info
Blech!
YES:
/usr/bin/netpbm/ the only special case
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
They can be accommodated by providing a
script with the package that moves the files elsewhere if this becomes a big
issue, no?
upgrades?
Also, user customized installations belong in /usr/local; don't mess
with /usr if you want support from the
At 04:03 PM 4/26/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote:
As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't there a limit
to the number of files and/or directory entries in any one directory on
win32?
I remember something vague about the number of entries in a directory on
FAT (not FAT32) partitions but
At 04:23 PM 4/26/2002, you wrote:
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
They can be accommodated by providing a script with the package that moves the files
elsewhere if this becomes a big issue, no?
upgrades?
Run the script again.
Also, user customized installations belong in
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
At 04:03 PM 4/26/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote:
As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't there a limit
to the number of files and/or directory entries in any one directory on
win32?
I remember something vague about the number of entries in
At 04:40 PM 4/26/2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
At 04:03 PM 4/26/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote:
As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't there a limit
to the number of files and/or directory entries in any one directory on
win32?
I remember
Charles Wilson wrote:
However, directories other than the root are unlimited in size (except
by your patience, and vision)
Given that, I think the usual /usr/bin directory should suffice.
Earnie.
-Original Message-
From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 6:03 AM
As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't
there a limit to the number of files and/or directory entries
in any one directory on win32?
As has already been
-Original Message-
From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 6:03 AM
As for the # of executables in the /bin directory, isn't
there a limit to the number of files and/or directory entries
in any one directory on win32?
As has already
33 matches
Mail list logo
