RE: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-18 Thread Dave Korn
On 18 August 2006 15:20, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 10:38:29AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> BTW I would also not want to change the name from upstream. It is *so* >> much the twin/counterpart of make that the name is entirely suitable. > > ...and that's why I suggested /

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-18 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 10:38:29AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >On 17 August 2006 21:30, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> I guess this is a YMMV situation. It seems to me that this is intended as >> a replacement for GNU make. >> >> remake is a patched and modernized version of GNU make utility tha

RE: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-18 Thread Dave Korn
On 17 August 2006 21:30, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I guess this is a YMMV situation. It seems to me that this is intended as > a replacement for GNU make. > > remake is a patched and modernized version of GNU make utility that > adds improved error reporting, the ability to trace execu

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-17 Thread Reini Urban
Max Bowsher schrieb: Reini Urban wrote: I have /usr/bin/makedb.exe Is this 'makedb' name in any way official? Nope. It's private only. Personally, I am opposed to renaming 'remake' to 'makedb' (in both the executable and package name) as a Cygwin-local change, if that's what it is. -- R

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-17 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 08:32:33PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >On 17 August 2006 20:04, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:00:22PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >>> Christopher Faylor schrieb: On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:18:28AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > [snip]

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-17 Thread Max Bowsher
Reini Urban wrote: I have /usr/bin/makedb.exe Is this 'makedb' name in any way official? Personally, I am opposed to renaming 'remake' to 'makedb' (in both the executable and package name) as a Cygwin-local change, if that's what it is. Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital sig

RE: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-17 Thread Dave Korn
On 17 August 2006 20:04, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:00:22PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >> Christopher Faylor schrieb: >>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:18:28AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: [snip] >>> >>> I just wanted to say that I really love the idea of somethin

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-17 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:00:22PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >Christopher Faylor schrieb: >>On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:18:28AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>[snip] >> >>I just wanted to say that I really love the idea of something like >>remake. I have spent way too much of my life debugging

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-17 Thread Reini Urban
Christopher Faylor schrieb: On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:18:28AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: [snip] I just wanted to say that I really love the idea of something like remake. I have spent way too much of my life debugging makefiles and have wished for something like remake for a long time.

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-16 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:18:28AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >[snip] I just wanted to say that I really love the idea of something like remake. I have spent way too much of my life debugging makefiles and have wished for something like remake for a long time. So, I am not averse to the id

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-14 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:57:12PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >On 14 August 2006 14:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:47:04PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >>>Incidentally, it's also part of my plan to maintain it with the old >>>cygwin make DOS path-handling patches, which I hope w

RE: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-14 Thread Dave Korn
On 14 August 2006 14:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:47:04PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> Incidentally, it's also part of my plan to maintain it with the old >> cygwin make DOS path-handling patches, which I hope will satisfy a lot >> of the current complaints on the main

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-14 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:47:04PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Incidentally, it's also part of my plan to maintain it with the old >cygwin make DOS path-handling patches, which I hope will satisfy a lot >of the current complaints on the main list. :D I'm not too wild about having two different makes

Re: Package naming dilemma

2006-08-12 Thread Reini Urban
Dave Korn schrieb: I want to ITP remake (the make debugger) and I can't figure out how to name it. The upstream source is called remake-3.80+dbg-0.61.tar.gz. If I plug this into g-b-s unaltered, it decides the parts of the package name are: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/build/package/remake> ./re