Pending packages status

2003-01-06 Thread Pavel Tsekov
1. grace version: 5.1.10-1 status : not reviewed notes : http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-11/msg00322.html votes : 1 (Robert) url: http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/grace-5.1.10-1-src.tar.bz2 http://www.scytek.de/cygwin/setu

Patched sunrpc, nfs-server packages

2003-01-06 Thread Robb, Sam
All, Thanks for the testing and the feedback. New packages are available at . I have been testing these under W2K running as system services... if someone can provide instructions about how to get things up and running with inetd/xinetd, I would

Re: Ok, to upload nasm ?

2003-01-06 Thread Pavel Tsekov
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:07:48PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > >On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote: > > > >> > Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of > >> > /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? > >> > > >> >

Re: Ok, to upload nasm ?

2003-01-06 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:07:48PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote: >On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote: > >> > Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of >> > /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? >> > >> > Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the p

Ok, to upload nasm ?

2003-01-06 Thread Pavel Tsekov
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Dean Scarff wrote: > > Ok, I've just reviewed the package. Do you mind moving the contents of > > /usr/doc/nasm to /usr/doc/nasm-0.98.35 ? > > > > Btw, please, do not update the cygwin specific part of the package > > version number when releasing an updated version in the

Re: Setup of default configuration files

2003-01-06 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 07:49:52PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 05:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > That >> is basically asking 27 package maintainers to change the way they do >> things rather than just changing setup.exe. > >Did I miss something? I didn't think setup.exe

Re: Setup of default configuration files

2003-01-06 Thread Robert Collins
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 05:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > That > is basically asking 27 package maintainers to change the way they do > things rather than just changing setup.exe. Did I miss something? I didn't think setup.exe needed to change in either case? Rob -- GPG key available at: