[snip]
>
> Gary,
>
> Do you use the g-b-s for mutt?
Yep. For the last two or three releases.
> If so, would you care to
> submit the changes that factor out config variables *you*
> needed? If possible, please leave the default, rather than
> mutt-specific, values in the patch, but I'd ra
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> [snip]
> > > It's perhaps worth mentioning that I don't maintain any per-package
> > > customizations to the g-b-s directly, but instead have written
> > > myself a Python script which modifies the basic g-b-s according to a
> > > per-package rules
[snip]
> > It's perhaps worth mentioning that I don't maintain any per-package
> > customizations to the g-b-s directly, but instead have
> written myself
> > a Python script which modifies the basic g-b-s according to a
> > per-package rules file.
> >
> > For example, here are my rules for neo
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>
> > > If BASEPKG seems better for the upstream package name,
> >
> > What about just ${UPSTREAM_PACKAGE_NAME}?
>
> You know, the thought did cross my mind. But the above is just u
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
If BASEPKG seems better for the upstream package name,
What about just ${UPSTREAM_PACKAGE_NAME}?
You know, the thought did cross my mind. But the above is just unwieldy
enough to remove it from consideration.
OTOH, it
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > If BASEPKG seems better for the upstream package name,
>
> What about just ${UPSTREAM_PACKAGE_NAME}?
You know, the thought did cross my mind. But the above is just unwieldy
enough to remove it from consideration.
OTOH, it would be nice if all o
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > > Hmm. It seemed sort-of elegant to me to just use ${PKG}-${VER},
> > > rather than defining another variable.
> > > I'd go with just a comment.
> >
> > Fair enough. Want to resubmit
> If BASEPKG seems better for the upstream package name,
What about just ${UPSTREAM_PACKAGE_NAME}?
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
Hmm. It seemed sort-of elegant to me to just use ${PKG}-${VER}, rather than
defining another variable.
I'd go with just a comment.
Fair enough. Want to resubmit the patch with the comment?
If not, how about names:
BASEPKG
CYG
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> >
> > > Max Bowsher wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Of course, normally these are the same, but in my case they are not.
> > > > Therefore, the following patch changes all occurrences w
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
[...]
Of course, normally these are the same, but in my case they are not.
Therefore, the following patch changes all occurrences where ${BASEPKG} is
used in the second sense to ${PKG}-${VER}, so that ${BA
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
Two generic build script patches.
Number 1:
In doing the httpd->apache2 thing recently mentioned, I found that g-b-s
could use some tweaks to support this better. ${BASEPKG} is currently
used by the script in two different way
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
> [...]
> > Of course, normally these are the same, but in my case they are not.
> > Therefore, the following patch changes all occurrences where ${BASEPKG} is
> > used in the second sense to ${PKG}-${VER}, so that ${BASEPKG} may be
s/Since I've not/Since I've now/
Harold
Harold L Hunt II wrote:
Since I've not written three times more words that would be in such a
comment, I might as well give it a go:
Max Bowsher wrote:
[...]
Of course, normally these are the same, but in my case they are not.
Therefore, the following patch changes all occurrences where ${BASEPKG}
is used in the second sense to ${PKG}-${VER}, so that ${BASEPKG} may be
redefined in my case.
[...]
Max,
My two cents:
Stick
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Two generic build script patches.
>
> Number 1:
> In doing the httpd->apache2 thing recently mentioned, I found that g-b-s
> could use some tweaks to support this better. ${BASEPKG} is currently
> used by the script in two different ways:
> 1): name-versi
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>
> > Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
> > >(cd ${instdir} && \
> > >find ${instdir} -name "*.exe" -o -name "*.dll" | xargs cygcheck | \
> > >sed -e '/\.exe/d' -e 's,\\,/,g' | sort -bu | xargs -n1 cygpath -u
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
> >(cd ${instdir} && \
> >find ${instdir} -name "*.exe" -o -name "*.dll" | xargs cygcheck | \
> >sed -e '/\.exe/d' -e 's,\\,/,g' | sort -bu | xargs -n1 cygpath -u \
> > - | xargs cygcheck -f | sed 's%^% %' ; \
> > + |
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dr. Volker Zell wrote:
>(cd ${instdir} && \
>find ${instdir} -name "*.exe" -o -name "*.dll" | xargs cygcheck | \
>sed -e '/\.exe/d' -e 's,\\,/,g' | sort -bu | xargs -n1 cygpath -u \
> - | xargs cygcheck -f | sed 's%^% %' ; \
> + | xargs
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Hello Igor,
>
> found it useful (I want to build LibJasper which is only available as
> zipped archive):
>
> --- gbs~2004-06-08 16:56:20.215388800 +0200
> +++ gbs 2004-06-08 16:42:53.791884800 +0200
> @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@
> elif [ -e ${BASEPKG}.ta
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> | If so, let me propose the attached patch instead.
>
> Ping??
Pong. Sorry for the delay.
I just reviewed the whole thread, and couldn't find the corresponding
ChangeLog, either yours or Gerritt's. I also couldn't find a c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Max Bowsher wrote:
| * generic-build-script (install): Do not invoke gzip with no
arguments, and
| consequently die with "will not write compressed data to a terminal"
| if a package creates usr/share/man or usr/share/info, but does not
| in
Charles Wilson wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>>> As far as I can tell, generic-build-script and generic-readme are not IN
>>> the htdocs repository. The new file simply needs to be uploaded to the
>>> webserver. Or added to CVS, whichever.
>>
>> No, they are already in CVS:
>>
http://sources.redh
Max Bowsher wrote:
As far as I can tell, generic-build-script and generic-readme are not IN
the
--
htdocs
--
repository. The new file simply needs to be uploaded to the
webserver. Or added to CVS, whichever.
No, they are already in CVS:
http://sources.redhat.c
Charles Wilson wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> Dario Alcocer wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 12:39:12AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>
Fine by me.
>>>
>>> How do these changes get checked into CVS?
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, Charles owns that bit of the cygwin-apps repository, so either he
>> do
Max Bowsher wrote:
Dario Alcocer wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 12:39:12AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Fine by me.
How do these changes get checked into CVS?
AFAIK, Charles owns that bit of the cygwin-apps repository, so either he
does it, or he asks someone else to do it.
As far as I can tel
Dario Alcocer wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 12:39:12AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Fine by me.
>
> How do these changes get checked into CVS?
AFAIK, Charles owns that bit of the cygwin-apps repository, so either he
does it, or he asks someone else to do it.
Max.
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 12:39:12AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Fine by me.
How do these changes get checked into CVS?
--
Dario Alcocer -- Sr. Software Developer, Helix Digital Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.helixdigital.com
Dario Alcocer wrote:
The attached patch adds the following to the generic-build-script:
* automatically determines the correct decompression option for tar
from the original source tarball
* 'mkdirs' removes the .build, .inst, and .sinst directories, to
increase the likelihood that 'mkpat
29 matches
Mail list logo
