Hi Maintainers,
I was looking at the needed maintenance of cygwin-pkg-maint,
crossing the data of x86 setup.ini with cygwin-pkg-maint
and I found 2 main classes of mismatch plus a minor one
1) missing packages.
Package that are in x86 setup.ini but not reported in cygwin-pkg-maint
at any level.
N
On 2014-08-10 15:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
I was looking at the needed maintenance of cygwin-pkg-maint,
crossing the data of x86 setup.ini with cygwin-pkg-maint
and I found 2 main classes of mismatch plus a minor one
Thanks for taking the time to look into this!
1) missing packages.
Package tha
On 11/08/2014 06:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-08-10 15:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
I was looking at the needed maintenance of cygwin-pkg-maint,
crossing the data of x86 setup.ini with cygwin-pkg-maint
and I found 2 main classes of mismatch plus a minor one
Thanks for taking the time to lo
On Aug 10 23:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 15:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >I was looking at the needed maintenance of cygwin-pkg-maint,
> >crossing the data of x86 setup.ini with cygwin-pkg-maint
> >and I found 2 main classes of mismatch plus a minor one
>
> Thanks for taking the time
On 10/08/2014 21:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
Hi Maintainers,
PACKAGE SOURCE_PKG MAINTAINER
font-misc-ethiopic font-misc-ethiopic Jon Turney
I think I must decline this honour. I guess that Yaakov was the
uploader of this package.
On 11/08/2014 13:20, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 10/08/2014 21:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
Hi Maintainers,
PACKAGE SOURCE_PKG MAINTAINER
font-misc-ethiopic font-misc-ethiopic Jon Turney
I think I must decline this honour. I guess that Yaakov was the
uploader of
On 11/08/2014 12:44, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 10 23:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-08-10 15:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
I was looking at the needed maintenance of cygwin-pkg-maint,
crossing the data of x86 setup.ini with cygwin-pkg-maint
and I found 2 main classes of mismatch plus a mino
On 11/08/2014 12:44, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 10 23:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-08-10 15:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
I was looking at the needed maintenance of cygwin-pkg-maint,
crossing the data of x86 setup.ini with cygwin-pkg-maint
and I found 2 main classes of mismatch plus a mino
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
[…]
> Yes, these are obvious fixes.
[…]
I've looked at the file today. It seems that perl_vendor has been
removed, but not all Perl distributions that were bundled are listed.
I'll prepare a list of those over the weekend.
Given the purpose of the file and that it's mean
On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 19:55 +0200, Achim Gratz wrote:
> I've looked at the file today. It seems that perl_vendor has been
> removed, but not all Perl distributions that were bundled are listed.
> I'll prepare a list of those over the weekend.
perl_vendor was a subpackage of the perl source packag
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
> This is a package ownership database, not a package information
> database. What additional information do you think would be useful
> here?
Whether the package is available for both architectures and if it's
already converted to cygport for instance. From that databas
On 14/08/2014 21:21, Achim Gratz wrote:
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
This is a package ownership database, not a package information
database. What additional information do you think would be useful
here?
Whether the package is available for both architectures
Wrong expectation.
It is in both
Marco Atzeri writes:
>> Whether the package is available for both architectures
>
> Wrong expectation.
So what? I get how things are right now, that doesn't mean it has to
stay forever that way.
> It is in both architectures if it appears in both setup.ini;
> any other solution will create dupli
On Aug 14 22:28, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 14/08/2014 21:21, Achim Gratz wrote:
> >Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
> >>This is a package ownership database, not a package information
> >>database. What additional information do you think would be useful
> >>here?
> >
> >Whether the package is available fo
On 14/08/2014 22:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 14 22:28, Marco Atzeri wrote:
The build methods is maintainer choice.
I use cygport but I don't see a reason to mandate it.
Tiny correction: New packages should use cygport. We should really all
use the same packaging system. After all,
On Aug 14 23:29, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 14/08/2014 22:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 14 22:28, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>
> >>The build methods is maintainer choice.
> >>I use cygport but I don't see a reason to mandate it.
> >
> >Tiny correction: New packages should use cygport. We should r
On 2014-08-11 17:03, Marco Atzeri wrote:
attached 2 files.
The first is basically what should be the new cygwin-pkg-maint
that cover all the active package in both 32bit and 64 bit.
This was great, thank you. After rearranging the release areas, I was
able to get a more reliable list of what
n 12/08/2014 07:22, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-08-11 17:03, Marco Atzeri wrote:
That always annoyed be about this list, so I did change the list to use
proper case.
I will reinstate proper case on next check.
Could you check the latest cygwin-pkg-maint and see if I missed anything?
I
On 12/08/2014 13:34, Marco Atzeri wrote:
n 12/08/2014 07:22, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-08-11 17:03, Marco Atzeri wrote:
That always annoyed be about this list, so I did change the list to use
proper case.
I will reinstate proper case on next check.
Could you check the latest cygwin-p
On 2014-08-13 04:23, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 12/08/2014 13:34, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 12/08/2014 07:22, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
Could you check the latest cygwin-pkg-maint and see if I missed
anything?
I will re-run possible today.
No missing Maintainers for active packages (Category != _obs
> On 2014-08-11 17:03, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> > attached 2 files.
> > The first is basically what should be the new cygwin-pkg-maint
> > that cover all the active package in both 32bit and 64 bit.
>
> This was great, thank you. After rearranging the release areas, I was
> able to get a more relia
On 14/08/2014 22:47, Achim Gratz wrote:
Marco Atzeri writes:
Ultimately the need for this file should go away except for
bootstrapping a new maintainer.
I guess we will always need a maintainer database
I plan to produce a list of sources by arch as by product of
the current analysis.
he
22 matches
Mail list logo
