Hi, sorry for METOO(tm) notice. but check-0.9.10 is totally broken on cygwin.
http://sourceforge.net/p/check/bugs/88/ one of following should apply ASAP IMHO. * remove 0.9.10 and stick 0.9.8 * remove 0.9.10 and bump 0.9.11 or later Peace, 2014-04-22 5:41 GMT+09:00 waterlan <water...@xs4all.nl>: > Chris J. Breisch schreef op 2014-04-17 20:32: > >> Erwin Waterlander wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The major linux distributions have switched for their man system to >>> 'man-db' (http://man-db.nongnu.org/) in favour of the classic man. >>> >>> I think that Cygwin should also switch to man-db. man-db is much better >>> in handling man pages in different encoding. >>> >>> Before man-db, libpipeline (http://libpipeline.nongnu.org/) needs to be >>> ported, because man-db uses it. >>> >>> I have tried to port man-db to Cygwin, but I did not succeed. I got >>> stuck in libpipeline. Did anyone else succeed? >>> >> >> Yes. And I agree this is a good idea. >> >> Dependencies: gdbm, libpipeline >> >> Build dependencies: pkgconfig, check, and the typical build stuff >> (make, gcc, etc.) >> >> As I indicated earlier, I believe the current version of check is not >> working properly. >> >> Check-0.9.12 seems to work out-of-the-box. Configure with --prefix=/usr. > > > > Hi Yaakov, > > Would you like to update check to version 0.9.12? > > best regards, > > Erwin > > > >> >> "make check" on check reports all tests passed, despite what appear to >> be some failures. The CHANGELOG says that this version should pass all >> tests on Cygwin. I've just subscribed to the mailing list and will >> check on whether these failures can be ignored or not. Still, it >> definitely appears to work better than the version we have now, which >> only passes 1 test in the test suite. >> >> Libpipeline-1.3.0 seems to work out-of-the-box. Configure with >> --prefix=/usr. >> >> Oddly a "make check" for libpipeline-1.3.0 doesn't appear to actually >> do anything. This was not the case for earlier versions of >> libpipeline. Well, that's one way of getting rid of the test failures, >> I guess. >> >> Man-db-2.6.7 appears to work out-of-the-box. >> >> Configuring man-db is a little harder than the other two. >> >> ../man-db-2.6.7/configure --prefix=/usr --disable-setuid >> --docdir=/usr/share/doc/man-db >> >> If you don't add the --disable-setuid, you'll need to add a "man" user >> to your system. If you're not using Corinna's snapshots, you'll need >> to add the user to /etc/passwd as well. >> >> I'm not sure about the --docdir switch. That seemed to be consistent >> with Cygwin, but an actual package maintainer would be a better source >> of info on this. >> >> A couple of warnings are generated: >> >> *** Warning: This system can not link to static lib archive >> /usr/lib/libpipeline.la. >> *** I have the capability to make that library automatically link in when >> *** you link to this library. But I can only do this if you have a >> *** shared version of the library, which you do not appear to have. >> >> and a similar one for libman.la. >> >> I do have shared versions of these libraries, so I'm not sure why the >> warnings appear. I seem to recall a thread about something similar >> recently in the Cygwin mailing lists. I may go back and check. >> >> Once installed, you'll want to do a 'mandb -c' to create the database. >> It will report numerous warnings which can generally be ignored. See >> the manpage on mandb. This takes a while. >> >> When new packages are added or updated on your system, you should run >> 'mandb -c' again. This seems like something that should be part of >> postinstall. >> >> My 32-bit Cygwin install has a lot of gzipped files and the >> uncompressed versions under /usr/share/man. mandb didn't like that at >> all. That is probably something I did and not a Cygwin problem. >> >> Note that I've done only the most minimal of testing. make check >> passes for man-db and I've opened a few man pages. They seem to work. >> >> Obviously, someone with decision making power should decide if this is >> something we want to add to Cygwin. My vote is yes, but that's just >> one vote. Or maybe even zero. I'm not sure I get a vote. :) >> >> Also obviously, if the decision is to go forward, these three items >> need to be packaged up appropriately and a package maintainer >> assigned. Check is already a Cygwin package, but needs updating. >> >> Somehow I have a feeling about who will be nominated for this task. >> >> What minimal testing I have done has been on both 32-bit and 64-bit >> Cygwin 1.7.29. > > > -- > Erwin Waterlander > http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/ > > > -- > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
