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 really all
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.
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
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
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 package
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 database
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 duplicated
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 for both
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 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
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 !=
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?
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
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 to look
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
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
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
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.
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
