On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 23:00 +0100, David Stacey wrote:
> On 15/08/14 22:15, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > Where did we leave off wrt breaking out
> > perl_vendor?
>
> Back in April, Reini expressed a desire to keep perl_vendor, claiming
> that it is the easiest solution for both user and maintainer
On 15/08/14 22:15, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
Where did we leave off wrt breaking out
perl_vendor?
Back in April, Reini expressed a desire to keep perl_vendor, claiming
that it is the easiest solution for both user and maintainer [1].
Whilst there are some of us who might question this, Reini h
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 22:38 +0200, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Achim Gratz writes:
> > Achim Gratz writes:
> >> 1) ITA perl_vendor and provide an umbrella plus all dependencies for
> >> perl-5.14.2. I'd use current versions for these, not the original ones
> >> from perl_vendor.
> >
> > If you want to te
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 22:46 +0200, Achim Gratz wrote:
> That only really works for pure noarch packages of which there aren't
> all that many.
There are more than you think. In Ports, over 46% of the source
packages are completely noarch.
> As you say, this is doable today with not too much
> m
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
> A few things would have to be changed on the infrastructure side, but I
> think it's doable. The biggest issue may be that maintainers need to
> mark their packages ARCH=noarch as appropriate, and then remember to
> upload to a separate directory. The latter could be si
Achim Gratz writes:
> Achim Gratz writes:
>> 1) ITA perl_vendor and provide an umbrella plus all dependencies for
>> perl-5.14.2. I'd use current versions for these, not the original ones
>> from perl_vendor.
>
> If you want to test this, please use http://cygwin.stromeko.net as your
> only or add
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 22:11 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 15 12:21, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > However, what I did suggest earlier was to have a separate
> > noarch/release hierarchy for entirely noarch packages, which would
> > prevent having to upload noarch twice:
> >
> > http://www
On Aug 15 12:21, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 10:59 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 12 09:45, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> > > While revising the upload structure, please consider folding out the
> > > source
> > > package (e.g. into no-arch/ or src/) because it's not a convi
On 15/08/2014 21:39, Pavel Fedin wrote:
Hello, Marco.
Friday, August 15, 2014, 23:22:49 you wrote:
Pavel,
the fastest way to check is:
https://cygwin.com/packages/x86_64/onc-rpc-devel/
Thank you, i'll know that.
By the way, package list at https://cygwin.com/packages/ also doesn't
conta
On Aug 15 17:53, D. Boland wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
>
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > Works for me. Did you forget the `prep' stage?
> >
> > $ cygport procmail.cygport prep
> > >>> Preparing procmail-3.22-13.x86_64
> > *** Info: gnupg must be installed in order to check signatures.
> > >>
On 15/08/2014 21:11, Achim Gratz wrote:
Pavel Fedin writes:
Today in the afternoon i have checked x86-64 setup, no new package
appeared. Now i'm looking at the SFTP, onc-rpc-devel directory is
still there, but is empty. !ready file is also deleted.
You didn't do anything wrong and th
Pavel Fedin writes:
> Today in the afternoon i have checked x86-64 setup, no new package
> appeared. Now i'm looking at the SFTP, onc-rpc-devel directory is
> still there, but is empty. !ready file is also deleted.
You didn't do anything wrong and the package has been correctly uploaded
t
Hello!
Sorry for perhaps stupid question. But i cannot correctly upload my
new package. I have read both instructions on the web and recent
emails about flat layout, and did the following:
1. Created directory /x86_64/release/onc-rpc-devel
2. Placed my package (source, binary and
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 10:59 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 12 09:45, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> > While revising the upload structure, please consider folding out the source
> > package (e.g. into no-arch/ or src/) because it's not a convincing burden to
> > have to upload the same package twic
Hi Corinna,
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> Works for me. Did you forget the `prep' stage?
>
> $ cygport procmail.cygport prep
> >>> Preparing procmail-3.22-13.x86_64
> *** Info: gnupg must be installed in order to check signatures.
> >>> Unpacking source procmail-3.22.tar.gz
> *** Info:
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.
he
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 r
On Aug 15 09:53, D. Boland wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Aug 14 21:05, D. Boland wrote:
> > > Hi group,
> > >
> > > I intend to adopt the Cygwin package for the procmail program, version
> > > 3.22. The
> > > original maintainer, Jason Tishler has given me permis
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:24:52AM +0100, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
>
Beware the To/Cc headers in that last reply. I'm not sure how I maanged
to screw them up like that. I'm going to blame the fact that I'm still
trying to get used to Mutt's interface.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:24:58PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 01:37 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Packaging isn't quite right. After unpacking the -src tarball, I see a
> file git-2.0.4-1.src.patch, with contents:
>
> Binary files origsrc/git/t/lib-gpg/random_seed and
> src/git/t/lib-gpg/
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Aug 14 21:05, D. Boland wrote:
> > Hi group,
> >
> > I intend to adopt the Cygwin package for the procmail program, version
> > 3.22. The
> > original maintainer, Jason Tishler has given me permission to do so.
> >
> > The difference with previous Cy
On Wed, 2014-08-13 at 20:12 +0100, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 10:41:06PM +0100, Adam Dinwoodie wrote:
> > Just to update folk: I've bumped to v2.0.4, and everything's working a
> > lot more nicely. I've managed CVS imports using both 32-bit and 64-bit,
> > and I'm in the proce
22 matches
Mail list logo
