References:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<c20060412035331.GA7046%40trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Corinna wrote:
> <hint>
> Another iteration of the tcp_wrappers package with a
> shared lib instead of just a static lib would be a
> nice-to-have, too.
> </hint>
cgf wrote:
> How about searching the cygwin web site, i.e., the
> left hand bar under Contributing->Cygwin Packages?
> You seem to be volunteering to be the new package
> maintainer for tcp_wrappers. That would mean that
> when you make a new release it will be something
> greater than 7.6-3. That is a given.
Yes, I am attempting to volunteer to be the
maintainer.
Thank you for your patience with my fumblings. Even
when I choose Experimental in setup.exe, I only see
7.6-1. Also, previous traffic on the list indicated
that the next package would be -2[1]. So, my intention
is to package 7.6-2 which is meant to accomplish these
objectives: a) take on an orphan package[2], b) move
the documentation to /usr/share/{info,doc} in
correspondence with FHS[3], c) help me to be sure I
understand the document to which you directed me
(Thank
you).
> If you are volunteering to be the maintainer, then
> you will support this package from now on
Yes, though it is a plus that it appears to require
not
much maintenance (no revision since 2003). I hope
that
remains true, so I am submitting -2 as "test" and
waiting on the enhancement suggested by Corinna until
-3 or later.
> and you will have to be subscribed to this mailing
> list (digest is fine).
I commented about digest mode earlier in this thread
because in the document to which you directed me
(Thank
you) it says "We'd prefer if you read the non-digest
mode since prompt response to packaging issues is a
plus." Also, I find that using my current mail user
agent to respond to individual messages from a digest
is difficult. When I posted a reply to this thread
previously, I was concerned that I had broken the
thread. I'm trying very hard to be considerate,
polite
and respectful as I join this community with a
long-standing culture and tangible results.
> You don't need to send a new setup.hint because it
is
> an existing package which presumably has a valid
> setup.hint.
In the document to which you directed me (Thank you),
it says "Include a complete setup.hint file as part of
your proposal". Also, very recently on this list[4],
it was noted that a setup.hint should be included. Am
I to understand that those who determine GTG will
make the appropriate edits of the setup.hint as
appropriate for the curr, prev, test lines for
existing
packages, but not new ones?
I did add the service SSHD to the setup.hint file
ldesc, because it seemed logical to mention it when
sshd is in the installed hosts.allow. Since I
modified the file, I thought it prudent to include in
the ITP. I should have made it explicit in my
previous post that I had changed the setup.hint.
Release 7.6-2 of tcp_wrappers is available for review
at http://sagarmind.net/cygwin-contrib/ (sorry, no
FTP).
http://sagarmind.net/cygwin-contrib/setup.hint
http://sagarmind.net/cygwin-contrib/tcp_wrappers-7.6-2-src.tar.bz2
http://sagarmind.net/cygwin-contrib/tcp_wrappers-7.6-2.tar.bz2
Best Regards,
Bryan
Referenced articles at:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin.applications
[1] /5489
[2] /12934
[3] /6190
[4] /13260
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
