Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Balaji Venkataraman]

Hi - since ping appears to be currently orphaned, I wanted to see if I
can help out. It being a fairly simple package, definitely aided my
decision.

I downloaded the source for ping (Cygwin32). While I can't seem to get
the provided shell script to run right, I was able to apply the
included patch file and build the 32bit version. I tried building the
64bit version which did build and run fine on (Cygwin64 1.7.25). There
were a bunch of warnings (even without -Wall) in the 64bit build and I
patched them - mostly minor fixes like casts etc. and re-built/tested
both versions.

So, finally getting to my question - are the rudimentary ping tests
that I did, good enough to make this package worthy of release?

This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin
package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is
that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also,
am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script
etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice?
Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans.

Balaji

Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1897 bytes --]

On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote:
> Hi - since ping appears to be currently orphaned, I wanted to see if I
> can help out. It being a fairly simple package, definitely aided my
> decision.
> 
> I downloaded the source for ping (Cygwin32). While I can't seem to get
> the provided shell script to run right, I was able to apply the
> included patch file and build the 32bit version. I tried building the
> 64bit version which did build and run fine on (Cygwin64 1.7.25). There
> were a bunch of warnings (even without -Wall) in the 64bit build and I
> patched them - mostly minor fixes like casts etc. and re-built/tested
> both versions.
> 
> So, finally getting to my question - are the rudimentary ping tests
> that I did, good enough to make this package worthy of release?

I think so, yes.  Just keep in mind that Windows disallows using raw
sockets for non-admin users, which means that this ping implementation
will neither work for non-admins, nor for admins running a UAC-crippled
shell.  This shows up as questions on the Cygwin mailing list once in a
while, which, as a maintainer, you should be prepared to answer.

> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin
> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is
> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also,
> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script
> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice?
> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans.

Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries.  And of
course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing
package.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Fwd: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Balaji Venkataraman]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote:
>> Hi - since ping appears to be currently orphaned, I wanted to see if I
>> can help out. It being a fairly simple package, definitely aided my
>> decision.
>>
>> I downloaded the source for ping (Cygwin32). While I can't seem to get
>> the provided shell script to run right, I was able to apply the
>> included patch file and build the 32bit version. I tried building the
>> 64bit version which did build and run fine on (Cygwin64 1.7.25). There
>> were a bunch of warnings (even without -Wall) in the 64bit build and I
>> patched them - mostly minor fixes like casts etc. and re-built/tested
>> both versions.
>>
>> So, finally getting to my question - are the rudimentary ping tests
>> that I did, good enough to make this package worthy of release?
>
> I think so, yes.  Just keep in mind that Windows disallows using raw
> sockets for non-admin users, which means that this ping implementation
> will neither work for non-admins, nor for admins running a UAC-crippled
> shell.  This shows up as questions on the Cygwin mailing list once in a
> while, which, as a maintainer, you should be prepared to answer.

Thanks for the reply and the information/guidelines above.

>> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin
>> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is
>> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also,
>> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script
>> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice?
>> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans.
>
> Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries.  And of
> course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing
> package.

One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch
packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something
a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a
maintainer and user perspective?

Thanks,
Balaji

Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

On Oct 22 22:49, Balaji wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote:
> [...]
> >> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin
> >> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is
> >> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also,
> >> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script
> >> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice?
> >> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans.
> >
> > Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries.  And of
> > course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing
> > package.
> 
> One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch
> packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something
> a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a
> maintainer and user perspective?

Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support
them the same way as in Linux distros.  They still have to show up
twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:58:56AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Oct 22 22:49, Balaji wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin
>> >> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is
>> >> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also,
>> >> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script
>> >> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice?
>> >> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans.
>> >
>> > Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries.  And of
>> > course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing
>> > package.
>> 
>> One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch
>> packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something
>> a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a
>> maintainer and user perspective?
>
>Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support
>them the same way as in Linux distros.  They still have to show up
>twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area.

i.e., just like Linux distros do.

cgf

Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Achim Gratz]

Christopher Faylor writes:
>>Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support
>>them the same way as in Linux distros.  They still have to show up
>>twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area.
>
> i.e., just like Linux distros do.

Not all or even most of them.  The repo layout usually is like this:

dist/
   noarch/
   i386/
   i586/
   i686/
   x86_64/

Setup.exe can deal just fine with such a layout when there are ../noarch
paths in setup.ini.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds

Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1729 bytes --]

On Oct 23 13:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:58:56AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Oct 22 22:49, Balaji wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin
> >> >> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is
> >> >> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also,
> >> >> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script
> >> >> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice?
> >> >> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans.
> >> >
> >> > Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries.  And of
> >> > course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing
> >> > package.
> >> 
> >> One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch
> >> packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something
> >> a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a
> >> maintainer and user perspective?
> >
> >Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support
> >them the same way as in Linux distros.  They still have to show up
> >twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area.
> 
> i.e., just like Linux distros do.

Well, kind of.  OpenSuSE provides subdirectories i586/i686, x86_64, and
noarch for packages which are target-independent, which is neat.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Testing ping for cygwin x86_64

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 08:38:38PM +0200, Achim Gratz wrote:
>Christopher Faylor writes:
>>>Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support
>>>them the same way as in Linux distros.  They still have to show up
>>>twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area.
>>
>> i.e., just like Linux distros do.
>
>Not all or even most of them.  The repo layout usually is like this:
>
>dist/
>   noarch/
>   i386/
>   i586/
>   i686/
>   x86_64/
>
>Setup.exe can deal just fine with such a layout when there are ../noarch
>paths in setup.ini.

http://mirror.pnl.gov/fedora/linux/releases/18/Fedora/x86_64/os/Packages/e/

Notice the "noarch" intermingled with x86_64.

cgf