Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > > Nah, not hard or complicated, I already went through the process locally. > > I just need to memorialize it in the cyport (and look at my setup log to > > see the handful of sp

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: > Nah, not hard or complicated, I already went through the process locally. > I just need to memorialize it in the cyport (and look at my setup log to > see the handful of sphinx packages I installed, off the top of my head > sphinx-build, a

SSH key for Jeremy Drake

2025-04-25 Thread Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps
Name: Jeremy Drake BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY Comment: "Jeremy Drake" B3NzaC1yc2EDAQABAAABAQDSw43bWANkUZLgTU1e9yedgMWHUBncobL2kY3bVe ftXZTsx0aDy+fxvuFg1CwAREiSi/MYqHe4wagQfXVMOV+yHtP8PaWteGVOQ5NaLq2XPbQl qGJ5a4wagu9ORE8Kf4krcfDB97Q571UQ9KZGN2fHnPN8UoAZwXPi1JRJgCEAFnHYf/KMOD WthbF5YTjq5

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps wrote: > On 2025-04-25 3:28 p.m., Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > > > Do you think I should follow Debian here and use that fork?  Do I have to > > source the package from git then?  Gentoo still follows the actual last > > rel

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps
On 2025-04-25 3:28 p.m., Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > Do you think I should follow Debian here and use that fork?  Do I have to > source the package from git then?  Gentoo still follows the actual last > release Each used their own expert judgement, as you shall! I'm a bit surprised t

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote: > Later (2014-12-25!) developer sources: > > https://github.com/vmt/udis86 > > updated fork sources additions and fixes from multiple acked upstreams: > > https://github.com/canihavesomecoffee/udis86 > > used by Debian packager:

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps
On 2025-04-25 09:34, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps wrote: On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: This package uses python3 at build time. I inherit-ed python3, would I be better off pu

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps
Sorry, I think it sent to just you, not the list. (Today I tried claws-mail, it spams emails before I hit "send", today must uninstall claws-mail). On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:34:41 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Jeremy Drake wrote: > New version of the cygport attached (the patches didn't change so

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025, Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:02:29 -0700 (PDT) > Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: > > > This package uses python3 at build time. I inherit-ed python3, would > > I be better off putting it in BUILD_REQUIRES instead? > > If it me

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps
Nevermind, seems to be my gmail only that is acting up. The thread in the archive doesn't show 10 different versions of the email sent (which is what I saw and got me a little embarrassed). On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 8:55 AM Philippe Baril Lecavalier wrote: > > So sorry everyone for that messed up m

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps
So sorry everyone for that messed up messaging. I just tried a different email client, first message I send using it, and it decided to act really really crazy.

Re: [ITP] udis86

2025-04-25 Thread Philippe Baril Lecavalier via Cygwin-apps
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote: > This package uses python3 at build time. I inherit-ed python3, would > I be better off putting it in BUILD_REQUIRES instead? If it merely needs to execute some python scripts (seems to be the case here), rather than