>
> checkx does not yet have a home for ongoing development, save my hard
> drive, so there's no "upstream" site, and obviously there are no Linux
> distributions which include it. Therefore, I need some votes in favor...
You have mine. If I can ever get enough time to get emacs to build
reli
rxvt has long been on Corinna's list of orphaned packages (last known
version here:)
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-02/msg00139.html
The current version, rxvt-2.7.10-6, is over a year old
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2005-04/msg00011.html
Now, upstream development o
checkX is a little utility I wrote that tests to see if (a) the X11
client DLLs are installed on the machine, and (b) the Xserver on
$DISPLAY (or -d x.x.x.x:x) is running and usable.
It does not link against the Xll libraries itself, but attempts to
dlopen it, using a fuzzy name/path search.
On 5/5/06, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
I'm not sure why /usr/share/cygport is less misplaced than
/usr/lib/cygport/lib, except that the former sounds more accessible than
the latter. Either way, cygport still needs to be documented, then it
shouldn't really matter where the components are act
Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
Matthew C Snyder wrote:
Argh. Sorry, wrong list.
Yaakov
Matthew C Snyder wrote:
> This screenshot: http://cygwinports.dotsrc.org/screenshots/xfce4.jpg
> shows XFCE running under X/Cygwin. I've installed XFCE using the
> Cygwin setup.exe interface, and while it can be run by typing
> "xfce4-session.exe" at the prompt that appears when I run "startx",
>
Jason Alonso wrote:
Perhaps it would be slightly more elegant to put the cygclass files in
$prefix/share/cygport and export all of the functions defined in the
cygport script itself into tidy .sh files in $prefix/lib/cygport/lib?
I'm not strongly advocating these particular paths, but I kinda fe
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Wow, fine with me, you are probably the best candidate :-)
I already have updated packages ready for GNOME 2.14.
Are these yours already?
gnome-vfs2
libbonobo2
libbonoboui2
libgnome2
libgnomeui2
Yes, I took those for GNOME 2.10.
lcms is not mine. However, there was
Reini Urban wrote:
BTW Minor nitpick:
SRC_URI="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/${PN}/${P}.tar.bz2?download";
will not work.
Of course not, but that wouldn't work with Portage either. Remember,
also, that the source package name is determined from SRC_URI, so even
if the download worked, c
On 5/4/06, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
Portage itself was already vetoed, as it would mean entirely changing
the distro management scheme, and Portage just isn't meant for only
building packages. cygport is much simpler, doesn't require changing
the distro entirely, and was written with Cygwi
Yaakov schrieb:
> Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>> Who wants to maintain one or more of my packages, maybe Yaakov wants to
>> take over some of the GTK+ related packages? Then there are some more
>> major packages which really require a maintainer with more time than I
>> have (i.e. GCC, Perl).
> I'll
> Yaakov S writes:
> I would like to propose my cygport package as a new package
> building/maintaining method, as well as a new package for the
> distribution.
+1
BTW Minor nitpick:
SRC_URI="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/${PN}/${P}.tar.bz2?download";
will not work.
>>> Unpacking source cla
> Yaakov S writes:
> I would like to propose my cygport package as a new package
> building/maintaining method, as well as a new package for the
distribution.
+1
Ciao
Volker
13 matches
Mail list logo
