On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 04:40:28PM -0600, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports/release/netpbm/libnetpbm-devel/libnetpbm-devel-10.30-1.tar.bz2
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports/release/netpbm/libnetpbm-devel/setup.hint
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Please upload:
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports/release/netpbm/libnetpbm-devel/libnetpbm-devel-10.30-1.tar.bz2
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports/release/netpbm/libnetpbm-devel/setup.hint
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports/release/netpbm
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 09:33:46AM -0600, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Uploaded.
Thanks. Could you please remove all previous versions now?
I just did a rm **/*28* in the netpbm directory.
cgf
(zsh is great)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Uploaded.
Thanks. Could you please remove all previous versions now?
Yaakov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The pnmtopng utility, part of the Netpbm tools ( 10.29), contains a
vulnerability which can potentially result in the execution of
arbitrary code.
Please upload ASAP:
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports/release/netpbm/libnetpbm-devel/libnetpbm
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:59:09PM -0500, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
The pnmtopng utility, part of the Netpbm tools ( 10.29), contains a
vulnerability which can potentially result in the execution of
arbitrary code.
Please upload ASAP:
ftp://sunsite.dk/projects/cygwinports/release/netpbm
-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, debian
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
http://cygwin-ports.sourceforge.net/install/temp/netpbm
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
http://cygwin-ports.sourceforge.net/install
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Is it really not possible to find a maintainer who is willing
to adopt Ch. Wilsons netpbm package?
Hmmm, I've built it once; looks like there's an update upstream
(including a security fix). If there's really interest
want to say: Search Maintainer for netpbm
Is it really not possible to find a maintainer who is willing
to adopt Ch. Wilsons netpbm package?
http://netpbm.alioth.debian.org/ claims there are some licensing problems.
But the project is hosted at Sourceforge, and
http://sourceforge.net
Yaakov S wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Is it really not possible to find a maintainer who is willing
to adopt Ch. Wilsons netpbm package?
Hmmm, I've built it once; looks like there's an update upstream
(including a security fix). If there's
Hello,
want to say: Search Maintainer for netpbm
Is it really not possible to find a maintainer who is willing
to adopt Ch. Wilsons netpbm package?
Regards,
Gerrit
--
=^..^=
let you
download it...
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~cwilson/cygutils/testing/index.php?dir=release%2Fnetpbm/
Thanks. I was hoping for a less invasive set of changes to the GBS, but
most of them seem unavoidable. I'll see what I can do, though.
The division into libnetpbm* and netpbm is good
Hi,
There is a netpbm binary distributed on Pierre Humblet's ftp area at
ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/pc/gnuwin32/cygwin/porters/Humblet_Pierre_A/V1.1/.
Any particular reason why it's not part of the Cygwin distribution (other
than nobody bothered to make it into a package)?
Igor
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There is a netpbm binary distributed on Pierre Humblet's ftp area at
ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/pc/gnuwin32/cygwin/porters/Humblet_Pierre_A/V1.1/.
Any particular reason why it's not part of the Cygwin distribution (other
than nobody bothered to make it into a package
At 04:58 PM 9/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:
Hi,
There is a netpbm binary distributed on Pierre Humblet's ftp area at
ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/pc/gnuwin32/cygwin/porters/Humblet_Pierre_A/
V1.1/.
Any particular reason why it's not part of the Cygwin distribution (other
than nobody bothered to make
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Charles Wilson wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
There is a netpbm binary distributed on Pierre Humblet's ftp area at
ftp://ftp.uni-erlangen.de/pub/pc/gnuwin32/cygwin/porters/Humblet_Pierre_A/V1.1/.
Any particular reason why it's not part of the Cygwin distribution
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Chuck, if you could dig it up, that'd be great. Did you adapt it to use
the generic-build-script? If so, how did you deal with the weird
configure?
It uses a variant of the gbs, IIRC. I'm on dailup right now, so I'll
let you download it...
the problem in adding two files to the package:
/etc/profile.d/netpbm.sh:
PATH=$PATH:/usr/netpbm/bin export $PATH
/etc/profile.d/netpbm.csh:
set path = ( $path /usr/netpbm/bin )
Because I would `mv /usr/netpbm/bin/* /usr/bin/ rm -rf /usr/netpbm
rm -f /etc/profile.d/netpbm
. The former
we can deal with as required.
What's the problem in adding two files to the package:
/etc/profile.d/netpbm.sh:
PATH=$PATH:/usr/netpbm/bin export $PATH
/etc/profile.d/netpbm.csh:
set path = ( $path /usr/netpbm/bin )
Because I would `mv /usr/netpbm/bin/* /usr
Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
At 07:44 AM 4/29/2002, Earnie Boyd wrote:
-8-
The point is, the extra path walks are
expensive.
Quite true. But I would say that Corinna's suggestion, from a strict
technical perspective, makes netpbm in a different bin directory usable
'out
the problem in adding two files to the package:
/etc/profile.d/netpbm.sh:
PATH=$PATH:/usr/netpbm/bin export $PATH
/etc/profile.d/netpbm.csh:
set path = ( $path /usr/netpbm/bin )
Great idea -- but I believe a consenses has already been reached: put
the binaries in /usr/bin. I
be much work, there seem to be a few system
profiles, and then some questions.
Big directories == slow. Much worse on FAT than on NTFS. There's no
hard limit on non-partition-root directories, however (unless somebody
does something REALLY silly, like 'mount C:\ /bin'.
Putting all the netpbm
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
.exes and/or .dll's
to the /usr/bin directory. And will the inevitable 'my dos script can't
find netpbm foobar tool' questions be worth it?
Well my system32 directory here has 1971 files. Adding a coupla hundred
optional files doesn't seem all that bad to me.
And hey, if FAT is too slow, folk can
fucntionality
Actually, you'll just want to change it to '-dhared'. We don't wan't
--export-all, because then cygpbm.dll would export stuff from
cygpbm.dll. The netpbm build scripts already work around this by using
dlltool to autogenerate a .def file for JUST the stuff that cygpXm
should export
of a performance hog than adding x-100 .exes and/or .dll's
to the /usr/bin directory. And will the inevitable 'my dos script can't
find netpbm foobar tool' questions be worth it?
It be the reason I would want the binaries in /bin. I even remove the
/usr/bin from the PATH. Watch how many extra calls
updated my version to netpbm-9.25, and split the
binary package into two different packages:
netpbm-9.25-1
libnetpbm9-9.25-1 (contains the DLLs alone).
There is no separate -devel package, because without further work, you
can't have two versions coexist side-by-side: the static libs, import
more or less of a performance hog than adding x-100 .exes and/or .dll's
to the /usr/bin directory. And will the inevitable 'my dos script can't
find netpbm foobar tool' questions be worth it?
No, not in my book.
Well my system32 directory here has 1971 files. Adding a coupla hundred
optional files
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
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
gnuplot against your 'libpnm1' DLLs, his gnuplot will still work even
after he
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 ps
into /opt/pkg/*
and making symlinks these days.
However, IMO netpbm, like XF86, is a special case -- how many other
packages have 223 executable files and scripts? (KDE doesn't count;
the KDE environment consists of lots of different packages; netpbm is
one integral unit (or at most 4
/bin clean -- although
distributions are moving towards putting stuff into /opt/pkg/* and making symlinks
these days.
However, IMO netpbm, like XF86, is a special case -- how many other packages have 223
executable files and scripts? (KDE doesn't count; the KDE environment consists of
lots
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
the list.
I'd probably end up ignoring Jan's package and rebuilding my own version
(which goes into:
/usr/local/bin/netpbm/*
/usr/local/lib/
/usr/local/include/
etc...
Or maybe downloading Jan's -src package with each new release and
rebuilding it after changing the prefix...and the /bin/netpbm
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
of netpbm to go in other directories. I wasn't really
proposing a specific solution.
I'd probably end up ignoring Jan's package and rebuilding my own version (which goes
into:
/usr/local/bin/netpbm/*
/usr/local/lib/
/usr/local/include/
etc...
Or maybe downloading Jan's -src package with each
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
49 matches
Mail list logo
