"Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Btw, how is your guile contribution coming along?
>
> The static build is ok, same quality as yours, only two minor patches.
> Dynamic seems to make problems at least with lilypond, also another guy
> was not able to rebuild it with my patch, I thi
===
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The have both been bosted to one of the cygwin lists in the last
.p
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug repor
- Original Message -
From: "Jochen Küpper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Gerrit> I would prefer if the listserver would manage this and rewrite
> Gerrit> the Reply-To Header regardless who is writing, so it points
> Gerrit> always to the list.
>
> That is not what reply-to is intended for.
We are
"Billinghurst, David (CRTS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have successfully installed your texmf packages using setup. I just put
> your files in my existing downloaded files and edited my existing setup.ini
> to add the texmf-* hints.
>
> Simple tests for tex, latex and dvips work. I will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:17:26 +0100 Gerrit P Haase wrote:
Gerrit> I would prefer if the listserver would manage this and rewrite
Gerrit> the Reply-To Header regardless who is writing, so it points
Gerrit> always to the list.
That is not what reply-to
Hallo Robert,
Am 2001-12-08 um 03:51 schriebst du:
> BTW: Gerrit, if you post with a munged Reply-To: Address, could you
> please also Munge your 'readable version' to be something like "Gerrit
> Haase @ Cygwin" rather than just "Gerrit P. Haase"?
Yes, good point to avoid trouble.
I would pref
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > Non-public code bug reports do belong here
>
> you mean, bug reports for non-public code belong on
***cygwin-apps@***,
> right? This thread is on cygwin@ (originally because of the texmf
> thin
Robert Collins wrote:
> Non-public code bug reports do belong here
you mean, bug reports for non-public code belong on ***cygwin-apps@***,
right? This thread is on cygwin@ (originally because of the texmf
thing, and Gerrit's Reply-To address). Perhaps this setup-related
subthread should be mov
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You'd want a central tool(set) to do the
> > building and packaging, and package specific scripts/makefile
> > snippets.
>
> Well, that's what Robert is pushing. But IMO we shouldn't try to
> reinvent THAT wheel (the pack
Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You're in bsd-ports "make world" mode, I see. I don't think that is a
> goal, yet. *OUR* concern is "make cygwin work".
Yes, I guess our priorities don't match. I've been in "make world"
mode since the b20 days; I needed to build some core develop
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>>different naming convention, ie foo-1.1-cyg.tar.gz?
>>>
>>probably too late -- non-maintainers who want to build it personally
>>should just download and follow the instructions.
>>
>
> Hmm, that sounds awfully unscri
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
> Ok thanks for the pointer. Is there a script to do the packaging?
yep -- each script contains a script (in some package schemes -- #3, I
think -- you have to apply the patch FIRST, and then the script is
created in /CYGWIN-PATCHES/ or something).
>>pop quiz: w
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:04:22AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That's the thing -- Chris has been offering webspace if folks needed
>> it. BUT, you don't even NEED webspace to port a package. Just port it,
>> promise to maintain it, and upload i
Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, but I don't have that itch. Sorry, but I don't really *care*
> about rpm itself.
No, me neither. It seemed just more convenient to package my stuff,
although the perl/berk db dependencies didn't really help.
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAI
Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @%!@#$ AT&T@home smtp server it lost my reply to this message, so
> this is try #2...
Thanks for doing your try #2
> I'm not sure I understand. It wasn't that you needed to provide a
> reverse patch,
[..]
> It's not supposed to be a backward pat
Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > different naming convention, ie foo-1.1-cyg.tar.gz?
>
> probably too late -- non-maintainers who want to build it personally
> should just download and follow the instructions.
Hmm, that sounds awfully unscriptable :-) Am I the only non-maintainer
.
-Original Message-
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2001 12:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: experimental texmf packages
Hi List,
This week I've taken a quick stab at packaging a texmf tree that goes
with the tetex-beta in contrib, so y
Robert Collins wrote:
> do porting. So the point is that if RPM had been contributed, and you
> maintain *just that one package* as an official package (Hey, Chuck this
> goes for you too :})
Yeah, but I don't have that itch. Sorry, but I don't really *care*
about rpm itself. I just liked the
@%!@#$ AT&T@home smtp server it lost my reply to this message, so
this is try #2...
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Well, I still thought it was silly to have identical forward and
> backward patches, when we have a patch -R flag. Normal mode of
> operation is to (apply and) supply forward patch
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Do we already have -src packages that adhere to this new convention?
Yep. mktemp. automake, automake-devel, automake-stable, autoconf,
autoconf-devel, autoconf-stable, cygutils, ...
> If it's not too late, it would be very nice if they could be
> distinguished fro
"Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Build environments to recreate a -src package need
> a) pristine source TARBALL.
> b) patch for current -x version
> c) extracted and patched working dir.
> the pre-patch -src requirement has been. See
> http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html. No mention
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well, I still thought it was silly to have identical forward and
> backward patches, when we have a patch -R flag. Normal mode of
> operation is to (apply and) supply forward patches; now my (and
> everyone else's pack
Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First, thanks for your reply on my ranting mail, that went to the list
by accident (look at Gerrit's address).
> Silly? no. Difficult and painful, prompting questions like "surely
> there is a better way"? yes.
Well, I still thought it was silly to h
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Thanks. I know about that page; but I'm not sure about the status of
> all individual items; notably the absolute silly reversed-patch
> requirement.
Silly? no. Difficult and painful, prompting questions like "surely
there is a better way"? yes.
You need to unders
"Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nah, what I meant, there is a function in libpng not found because tetex
> was linked against another version and the table layout changed (unfortunately),
> so tetex needs a rebuild with the current libpng.
Yes, I've asked Jerome for a rebuild (af
Hallo Jan,
2001-12-03 13:41:16, du schriebst:
>> That was installed with setup.exe. But I didn't tested much, so I would
>> like to do more testing.
>> There seem to be also be dependencies to libpng which causes errors.
> Ok. I've addes setup hints, made some fixes and even did some testing
"Gerrit P. Haase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was installed with setup.exe. But I didn't tested much, so I would
> like to do more testing.
> There seem to be also be dependencies to libpng which causes errors.
Ok. I've addes setup hints, made some fixes and even did some testing
this w
27 matches
Mail list logo
