missing 64bit ports

missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

Dear All,
I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
still missing as 64 bit port.
After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw 
ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.

Please see here the analysis :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
Feel free to insert comments on the cells.

For what I found :

- half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
obsolete and don't worry anynore.

- Few are Jary's scripts, so the only porting issue is Jary's time.

- Very few have real porting issue

The only one really interesting for me is Mathomatic and eventually 
catdoc if works with latest word documents.
(of course I will port pure-ftpd)


Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marcos Vives Del Sol]

Reason I didn't port libnfc was because I lost my SSH key due to a
hard drive crash. Any procedure on how to get a new one so I can
compile and upload it?

2015-07-15 16:24 GMT+02:00 Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@gmail.com>:
> Dear All,
> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> still missing as 64 bit port.
> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
> the duplicates we are down to ~44.
>
> Please see here the analysis :
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> Feel free to insert comments on the cells.
>
> For what I found :
>
> - half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
> obsolete and don't worry anynore.
>
> - Few are Jary's scripts, so the only porting issue is Jary's time.
>
> - Very few have real porting issue
>
> The only one really interesting for me is Mathomatic and eventually catdoc
> if works with latest word documents.
> (of course I will port pure-ftpd)
>
>
> Regards
> Marco
>
>
>
>



-- 
Marcos Vives Del Sol
https://github.com/socram8888
miniLock: NscWdW8fh2E5SBoRtrnXWrDwmQmwaR5awMKE78tQW1Ffx

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Warren Young]

On Jul 15, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Marcos Vives Del Sol <socram8888@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Reason I didn't port libnfc was because I lost my SSH key due to a
> hard drive crash. Any procedure on how to get a new one so I can
> compile and upload it?

$ ssh-keygen

I assume those in charge of maintaining the list of allowed keys will be willing to accept a different key from you, so just resubmit it as if you were doing it for the first time.

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 15/07/2015 19:39, Marcos Vives Del Sol wrote:
> Reason I didn't port libnfc was because I lost my SSH key due to a
> hard drive crash. Any procedure on how to get a new one so I can
> compile and upload it?
>

hi Marcos,
Any news ?

Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 26/09/2015 12:51, Marcos Vives Del Sol wrote:
> Compiled, tested and uploaded.
>
> 2015-09-26 11:50 GMT+02:00 Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@gmail.com>:
>> On 15/07/2015 19:39, Marcos Vives Del Sol wrote:
>>>
>>> Reason I didn't port libnfc was because I lost my SSH key due to a
>>> hard drive crash. Any procedure on how to get a new one so I can
>>> compile and upload it?
>>>
>>
>> hi Marcos,
>> Any news ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Marco
>>
>

Thanks
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Warren Young]

On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> still missing as 64 bit port.

Thank you for doing this research.

> ...we are down to ~44.
> ...half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
> obsolete and don't worry anynore.

Wow.  I’ve updated my related answer on Stack Overflow (http://goo.gl/yOAqAn) to reflect this drastic shrinkage of this list’s size.

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1361 bytes --]

On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> Dear All,
> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> still missing as 64 bit port.
> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
> the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> 
> Please see here the analysis :
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> Feel free to insert comments on the cells.
> 
> For what I found :
> 
> - half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
> obsolete and don't worry anynore.
> 
> - Few are Jary's scripts, so the only porting issue is Jary's time.
> 
> - Very few have real porting issue
> 
> The only one really interesting for me is Mathomatic and eventually catdoc
> if works with latest word documents.
> (of course I will port pure-ftpd)

Thanks for looking into this.

Two points:

- Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
  get a maintainer until, say, end of August?

- We should probably consider to remove the mingw.org packages.  All
  of them.  They are hopelessly outdated and mingw-w64 does the same
  job better hands down.


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Warren Young]

On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> 
> - Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
>  get a maintainer until, say, end of August?

If a package is available only for 32-bit, there should be a place to learn that prior to running setup.exe.  The fact that some items are on that list because they’re orphaned and thus have no immediate prospect of getting off the list is inconsequential to the end users who consult it.

If your goal is to evaporate this list, I’d prefer that you just removed orphaned packages from both the 32- and 64-bit repositories on the justification that Cygwin should only offer packages available for both architectures.  And going forward, refuse new uploads if packages for both architectures aren’t provided promptly.

There can be exceptions, as with the recent libsigsegv thing.  I also thought I saw some talk about Perl currently being somewhat desynchronized at the moment.  I’m not talking about such cases.  The existing packages are maintained, and ownership of the solution for the missing packages is known.

I think this is going to far, but it would be well within your prerogative.

> - We should probably consider to remove the mingw.org packages.  All
>  of them.  They are hopelessly outdated and mingw-w64 does the same
>  job better hands down.

I can’t see why anyone would adopt those old abandoned packages.  Not only do I have no objection to you nuking them, I think it would be an actual improvement, since it removes a point of confusion in the setup.exe package selection screen.

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Ken Brown]

On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
>> still missing as 64 bit port.
>> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
>> the duplicates we are down to ~44.
>>
>> Please see here the analysis :
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
>> Feel free to insert comments on the cells.
>>
>> For what I found :
>>
>> - half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
>> obsolete and don't worry anynore.
>>
>> - Few are Jary's scripts, so the only porting issue is Jary's time.
>>
>> - Very few have real porting issue
>>
>> The only one really interesting for me is Mathomatic and eventually catdoc
>> if works with latest word documents.
>> (of course I will port pure-ftpd)
>
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
> Two points:
>
> - Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
>    get a maintainer until, say, end of August?

That seems reasonable, as long as there are exceptions for packages 
where the lack of a 64-bit package is due to genuine porting 
difficulties.  libsigsegv was in that category until yesterday.  Another 
one I'm aware of is ffcall.

> - We should probably consider to remove the mingw.org packages.  All
>    of them.  They are hopelessly outdated and mingw-w64 does the same
>    job better hands down.

+1

Ken

Re: missing 64bit ports

[jari]

On 2015-07-15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
| On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| >On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| >>Dear All,
| >>I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
| >>still missing as 64 bit port.
| >>After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
| >>the duplicates we are down to ~44.
| >>
| >>Please see here the analysis :
| >>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0

Great summary.

I'd love to port pristine-tar to x64 but the

   xdelta3  (which is linked to xdelta in x64)

has incomatible options compared to original xdelta; thus program
won't work.

Could someone port the old xdelta to x64.

Thanks,
Jari

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/16/2015 10:06 AM, jari wrote:
> On 2015-07-15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
> | On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> | >On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> | >>Dear All,
> | >>I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> | >>still missing as 64 bit port.
> | >>After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
> | >>the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> | >>
> | >>Please see here the analysis :
> | >>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
>
> Great summary.
>
> I'd love to port pristine-tar to x64 but the
>
>     xdelta3  (which is linked to xdelta in x64)
>
> has incomatible options compared to original xdelta; thus program
> won't work.
>
> Could someone port the old xdelta to x64.
>
> Thanks,
> Jari
>

I will work on it.
Which option is needed ?

Reg

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[jari]

On 2015-07-16 10:10, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| On 7/16/2015 10:06 AM, jari wrote:
| >On 2015-07-15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
| >| On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| >| >On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| >| >>Dear All,
| >| >>I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
| >| >>still missing as 64 bit port.
| >| >>After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
| >| >>the duplicates we are down to ~44.
| >| >>
| >| >>Please see here the analysis :
| >| >>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
| >
| >Great summary.
| >
| >I'd love to port pristine-tar to x64 but the
| >
| >    xdelta3  (which is linked to xdelta in x64)
| >
| >has incomatible options compared to original xdelta; thus program
| >won't work.
| >
| >Could someone port the old xdelta to x64.
| >
| >Thanks,
| >Jari
| >
| 
| I will work on it.
| Which option is needed ?

This is the command that fails (from debugging pristine-tar):

xdelta delta -0 --pristine /tmp/pristine-tar.joIgDIVU9F/recreatetarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/origtarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/deltaxdel

So, the option missing from xdelta3 is:

  --pristine

From xdelta(1) man page:

   -p, --pristine
       Disable the automatic decompression of gzipped inputs, to
       prevent unexpected differences in the re-compressed content.

thanks,
Jari

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Achim Gratz]

jari writes:
> This is the command that fails (from debugging pristine-tar):
>
> xdelta delta -0 --pristine /tmp/pristine-tar.joIgDIVU9F/recreatetarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/origtarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/deltaxdel
>
> So, the option missing from xdelta3 is:
>
>   --pristine
>
> From xdelta(1) man page:
>
>    -p, --pristine
>        Disable the automatic decompression of gzipped inputs, to
>        prevent unexpected differences in the re-compressed content.

Please note that pristine-tar is orphaned/dead upstream since about a
year and both the issue of it still using the xdelta1 syntax and some
other bugs are unlikely to be fixed until someone shows up to maintain
it.

The option above may no longer be needed with xdelta3, since from
reading the manpage it seems it no longer automatically decompresses
its input.  But there are likely other incompatibilities.


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

Wavetables for the Terratec KOMPLEXER:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KomplexerWaves

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/16/2015 8:35 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> jari writes:
>> This is the command that fails (from debugging pristine-tar):
>>
>> xdelta delta -0 --pristine /tmp/pristine-tar.joIgDIVU9F/recreatetarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/origtarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/deltaxdel
>>
>> So, the option missing from xdelta3 is:
>>
>>    --pristine
>>
>>  From xdelta(1) man page:
>>
>>     -p, --pristine
>>         Disable the automatic decompression of gzipped inputs, to
>>         prevent unexpected differences in the re-compressed content.
>
> Please note that pristine-tar is orphaned/dead upstream since about a
> year and both the issue of it still using the xdelta1 syntax and some
> other bugs are unlikely to be fixed until someone shows up to maintain
> it.
>
> The option above may no longer be needed with xdelta3, since from
> reading the manpage it seems it no longer automatically decompresses
> its input.  But there are likely other incompatibilities.

may be. I asked info to the developer of xdelta about --pristine,
hoping he will reply.

Today we have two choices

#1) I pack both xdelta 1 & 3
#2) we drop pristine-tar


> Regards,
> Achim.

Cheers
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[jari]

On 2015-07-16 20:35, Achim Gratz wrote:
| jari writes:
| > This is the command that fails (from debugging pristine-tar):
| >
| > xdelta delta -0 --pristine /tmp/pristine-tar.joIgDIVU9F/recreatetarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/origtarball /tmp/pristine-tar.9DVOtZUF7E/deltaxdel
| >
| > So, the option missing from xdelta3 is:
| >
| >   --pristine
| >
| > From xdelta(1) man page:
| >
| >    -p, --pristine
| >        Disable the automatic decompression of gzipped inputs, to
| >        prevent unexpected differences in the re-compressed content.
| 
| Please note that pristine-tar is orphaned/dead upstream since about a
| year and both the issue of it still using the xdelta1 ...

Joey (the original developer and pristine-tar maintainer) moved efforts
to to dgit -- which unfortunately is useful only to Debian.

The pristine-tar + xdelta is a generic concept that can be used to
store binary files in any Git repository without much of data
duplication. E.g to store upstream tarbals easily in one place

There will be need for pristine-tar for long foreseeable future. It's
mature already.

| The option above may no longer be needed with xdelta3, since from
| reading the manpage it seems it no longer automatically decompresses
| its input.  But there are likely other incompatibilities.

Let's hear what the xdelta3 developer says about xdelta1 --pristine
option. I can then patch the code and test it more.

Jari

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/17/2015 1:52 AM, jari wrote:
>
> There will be need for pristine-tar for long foreseeable future. It's
> mature already.
>
> | The option above may no longer be needed with xdelta3, since from
> | reading the manpage it seems it no longer automatically decompresses
> | its input.  But there are likely other incompatibilities.
>
> Let's hear what the xdelta3 developer says about xdelta1 --pristine
> option. I can then patch the code and test it more.
>
> Jari
>

his answer:

"Xdelta3 and xdelta1 use completely different file formats. I have 
considered an option to translate old xdelta1 patchfiles into current 
xdelta3 patchfiles, but bugfixes and release work keep taking priority."

I will repack xdelta1

As I already bumped xdelta to 3.x series
any problem if I create a new xdelta1 package ?

Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[jari]

On 2015-07-17 07:32, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| On 7/17/2015 1:52 AM, jari wrote:
| >
| >There will be need for pristine-tar for long foreseeable future. It's
| >mature already.
| >
| >| The option above may no longer be needed with xdelta3, since from
| >| reading the manpage it seems it no longer automatically decompresses
| >| its input.  But there are likely other incompatibilities.
| >
| >Let's hear what the xdelta3 developer says about xdelta1 --pristine
| >option. I can then patch the code and test it more.
| >
| >Jari
| >
| 
| his answer:
| 
| "Xdelta3 and xdelta1 use completely different file formats. I have
| considered an option to translate old xdelta1 patchfiles into current
| xdelta3 patchfiles, but bugfixes and release work keep taking priority."
| 
| I will repack xdelta1
| 
| As I already bumped xdelta to 3.x series
| any problem if I create a new xdelta1 package ?

All good, provided that:

   xdelta1 => /usr/bin/xdelta   (the original)
   xdelta3 => /usr/bin/xdelta3 

Jari

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/17/2015 9:22 AM, jari wrote:

> | I will repack xdelta1
> |
> | As I already bumped xdelta to 3.x series
> | any problem if I create a new xdelta1 package ?
>
> All good, provided that:
>
>     xdelta1 => /usr/bin/xdelta   (the original)
>     xdelta3 => /usr/bin/xdelta3
>
> Jari
>

that is the plan.
I will remove xdelta links from xdelta3

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Achim Gratz]

jari writes:
> All good, provided that:
>
>    xdelta1 => /usr/bin/xdelta   (the original)
>    xdelta3 => /usr/bin/xdelta3 

Why?  The most current version of pristine-tar from git includes a commit
that gets rid of the hardcoded command names.  Given that it's
pristine-tar that holds onto an earlier version of xdelta, I don't see
why other users of xdelta expecting to get the latest version should be
suffering from that.


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

SD adaptation for Waldorf microQ V2.22R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[jari]

On 2015-07-17 20:17, Achim Gratz wrote:
| jari writes:
| > All good, provided that:
| >
| >    xdelta1 => /usr/bin/xdelta   (the original)
| >    xdelta3 => /usr/bin/xdelta3 
| 
| Why?  The most current version of pristine-tar from git includes a commit
| that gets rid of the hardcoded command names.

Could you point me to it. Joey's attic Git?

| Given that it's pristine-tar that holds onto an earlier version of
| xdelta, I don't see why other users of xdelta expecting to get the
| latest version should be suffering from that.

The official setup in Debian:

    xdelta:  /usr/bin/xdelta (version 1.1.3)
    xdelta3: /usr/bin/xdelta3

I think we should ensure compatibility between operating systems by
having similar setup.

Jari

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Achim Gratz]

jari writes:
> Could you point me to it. Joey's attic Git?

Yes.  This also removes the necessity for the tools to be in path.

http://git.kitenet.net/?p=zzattic/pristine-tar.git;a=commit;h=b2758dccf01c9d46d3083accab97f48c7978b5b0

> The official setup in Debian:
>
>     xdelta:  /usr/bin/xdelta (version 1.1.3)
>     xdelta3: /usr/bin/xdelta3
>
> I think we should ensure compatibility between operating systems by
> having similar setup.

I've looked at openSUSE and they seem to do the same.


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

Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Q+, Q and microQ:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/18/2015 10:11 AM, jari wrote:
> On 2015-07-17 20:17, Achim Gratz wrote:
> | jari writes:
> | > All good, provided that:
> | >
> | >    xdelta1 => /usr/bin/xdelta   (the original)
> | >    xdelta3 => /usr/bin/xdelta3
> |
> | Why?  The most current version of pristine-tar from git includes a commit
> | that gets rid of the hardcoded command names.
>
> Could you point me to it. Joey's attic Git?
>
> | Given that it's pristine-tar that holds onto an earlier version of
> | xdelta, I don't see why other users of xdelta expecting to get the
> | latest version should be suffering from that.
>
> The official setup in Debian:
>
>      xdelta:  /usr/bin/xdelta (version 1.1.3)
>      xdelta3: /usr/bin/xdelta3
>
> I think we should ensure compatibility between operating systems by
> having similar setup.
>
> Jari
>

as today
$ cygcheck -cd |grep xdelta
xdelta                                  3.0.9-1

To avoid backwards, my proposal is

xdelta1-1.1.4-2
xdelta-3.0.9-2   (removing the xdelta link to xdelta3)

if we agree that going backward in not a problem,

xdelta-1.1.4-2
xdelta3-3.0.9-2

is also fine for me.

Your preference ?

Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[jari]

On 2015-07-18 21:46, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| 
| 
| On 7/18/2015 10:11 AM, jari wrote:
| >On 2015-07-17 20:17, Achim Gratz wrote:
| >| jari writes:
| >| > All good, provided that:
| >| >
| >| >    xdelta1 => /usr/bin/xdelta   (the original)
| >| >    xdelta3 => /usr/bin/xdelta3
| >|
| >| Why?  The most current version of pristine-tar from git includes a commit
| >| that gets rid of the hardcoded command names.
| >
| >Could you point me to it. Joey's attic Git?
| >
| >| Given that it's pristine-tar that holds onto an earlier version of
| >| xdelta, I don't see why other users of xdelta expecting to get the
| >| latest version should be suffering from that.
| >
| >The official setup in Debian:
| >
| >     xdelta:  /usr/bin/xdelta (version 1.1.3)
| >     xdelta3: /usr/bin/xdelta3
| >
| >I think we should ensure compatibility between operating systems by
| >having similar setup.
| >
| >Jari
| >
| 
| as today
| $ cygcheck -cd |grep xdelta
| xdelta                                  3.0.9-1
| 
| To avoid backwards, my proposal is
| 
| xdelta1-1.1.4-2
| xdelta-3.0.9-2   (removing the xdelta link to xdelta3)
| 
| if we agree that going backward in not a problem,
| 
| xdelta-1.1.4-2
| xdelta3-3.0.9-2

The latter. It would be in par with Linux packages.

Jari

Re: missing 64bit ports (xdelta3 vs xdelta and pristine-tar)

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/19/2015 1:05 PM, jari wrote:
> On 2015-07-18 21:46, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> |

> |
> | as today
> | $ cygcheck -cd |grep xdelta
> | xdelta                                  3.0.9-1
> |
> | To avoid backwards, my proposal is
> |
> | xdelta1-1.1.4-2
> | xdelta-3.0.9-2   (removing the xdelta link to xdelta3)
> |
> | if we agree that going backward in not a problem,
> |
> | xdelta-1.1.4-2
> | xdelta3-3.0.9-2
>
> The latter. It would be in par with Linux packages.
>
> Jari
>

done.

Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1695 bytes --]

On Jul 15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>Dear All,
> >>I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> >>still missing as 64 bit port.
> >>After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
> >>the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> >>
> >>Please see here the analysis :
> >>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> >>Feel free to insert comments on the cells.
> >>
> >>For what I found :
> >>
> >>- half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
> >>obsolete and don't worry anynore.
> >>
> >>- Few are Jary's scripts, so the only porting issue is Jary's time.
> >>
> >>- Very few have real porting issue
> >>
> >>The only one really interesting for me is Mathomatic and eventually catdoc
> >>if works with latest word documents.
> >>(of course I will port pure-ftpd)
> >
> >Thanks for looking into this.
> >
> >Two points:
> >
> >- Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
> >   get a maintainer until, say, end of August?
> 
> That seems reasonable, as long as there are exceptions for packages where
> the lack of a 64-bit package is due to genuine porting difficulties.
> libsigsegv was in that category until yesterday.  Another one I'm aware of
> is ffcall.

I understand, but they are unmaintained.  So, who's going to check
if they are buildable as 64 bit packages?


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/17/2015 9:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:

>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>>
>>> Two points:
>>>
>>> - Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
>>>    get a maintainer until, say, end of August?
>>
>> That seems reasonable, as long as there are exceptions for packages where
>> the lack of a 64-bit package is due to genuine porting difficulties.
>> libsigsegv was in that category until yesterday.  Another one I'm aware of
>> is ffcall.
>
> I understand, but they are unmaintained.  So, who's going to check
> if they are buildable as 64 bit packages?

I will look on them, just to complete the effort ;-)

But IMHO some should be killed anyway

aewm++ ccdoc cramfs mtd ioperm xgraph xsri xview rxvt

as they are well dead upstream, and eventually also

nfrotz scsh wtf logiweb

for the same reason.
These have surely porting issue

ffcall flexdll xwinwm

like xemacs and pdftk so they belong to a different category

> Corinna
>

Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1636 bytes --]

On Jul 17 10:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 7/17/2015 9:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for looking into this.
> >>>
> >>>Two points:
> >>>
> >>>- Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
> >>>   get a maintainer until, say, end of August?
> >>
> >>That seems reasonable, as long as there are exceptions for packages where
> >>the lack of a 64-bit package is due to genuine porting difficulties.
> >>libsigsegv was in that category until yesterday.  Another one I'm aware of
> >>is ffcall.
> >
> >I understand, but they are unmaintained.  So, who's going to check
> >if they are buildable as 64 bit packages?
> 
> I will look on them, just to complete the effort ;-)
> 
> But IMHO some should be killed anyway
> 
> aewm++ ccdoc cramfs mtd ioperm xgraph xsri xview rxvt

Sounds like a plan.  These and all mingw packages.

> as they are well dead upstream, and eventually also
> 
> nfrotz scsh wtf logiweb
> 
> for the same reason.

As for logiweb, I have still hopes.  Yaakov uploaded Klaus' SSH key
on 2015-01-27.  Unfortunately Klaus never followed up after that,
but I just pinged him (and CCed him now).

> These have surely porting issue
> 
> ffcall flexdll xwinwm
> 
> like xemacs and pdftk so they belong to a different category

Ok.


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/17/2015 11:50 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 17 10:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> On 7/17/2015 9:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jul 15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two points:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
>>>>>    get a maintainer until, say, end of August?
>>>>
>>>> That seems reasonable, as long as there are exceptions for packages where
>>>> the lack of a 64-bit package is due to genuine porting difficulties.
>>>> libsigsegv was in that category until yesterday.  Another one I'm aware of
>>>> is ffcall.
>>>
>>> I understand, but they are unmaintained.  So, who's going to check
>>> if they are buildable as 64 bit packages?
>>
>> I will look on them, just to complete the effort ;-)
>>
>> But IMHO some should be killed anyway
>>
>> aewm++ ccdoc cramfs mtd ioperm xgraph xsri xview rxvt
> Sounds like a plan.  These and all mingw packages.

Jari (the not-maintainer) just uploaded aewm++.
I updated the list, accordingly.

>> as they are well dead upstream, and eventually also
>>
>> nfrotz scsh wtf logiweb
>>
>> for the same reason.
>
> As for logiweb, I have still hopes.  Yaakov uploaded Klaus' SSH key
> on 2015-01-27.  Unfortunately Klaus never followed up after that,
> but I just pinged him (and CCed him now).
>
>> These have surely porting issue
>>
>> ffcall flexdll xwinwm
>>
>> like xemacs and pdftk so they belong to a different category
>
> Ok.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Corinna
>

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/17/2015 11:59 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>
> Jari (the not-maintainer) just uploaded aewm++.
> I updated the list, accordingly.
>

but I suspect that everything Jari is loading is stacked on
his load stage area as

"ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  <> "Jari Aalto"

Corinna, Yaakov,

could you take care ?

Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]

On Jul 19 07:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 7/17/2015 11:59 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >
> >Jari (the not-maintainer) just uploaded aewm++.
> >I updated the list, accordingly.
> >
> 
> but I suspect that everything Jari is loading is stacked on
> his load stage area as
> 
> "ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  <> "Jari Aalto"
> 
> Corinna, Yaakov,
> 
> could you take care ?

Don't you have write access to cygwin-pkg-maint?  I'm not sure what
you're looking for.  Just removing the "ORPHANED" marker?


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/19/2015 9:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 19 07:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> On 7/17/2015 11:59 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>>
>>> Jari (the not-maintainer) just uploaded aewm++.
>>> I updated the list, accordingly.
>>>
>>
>> but I suspect that everything Jari is loading is stacked on
>> his load stage area as
>>
>> "ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  <> "Jari Aalto"
>>
>> Corinna, Yaakov,
>>
>> could you take care ?
>
> Don't you have write access to cygwin-pkg-maint?  I'm not sure what
> you're looking for.  Just removing the "ORPHANED" marker?
>
>
> Corinna
>

yes, I have.

What I should do changes

"ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  -> "Jari Aalto"

and than back again ?

Jari doesn't want to take the packages again so
they are ORPHAN anyway.

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1166 bytes --]

On Jul 19 09:18, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 7/19/2015 9:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 19 07:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>On 7/17/2015 11:59 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Jari (the not-maintainer) just uploaded aewm++.
> >>>I updated the list, accordingly.
> >>>
> >>
> >>but I suspect that everything Jari is loading is stacked on
> >>his load stage area as
> >>
> >>"ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  <> "Jari Aalto"
> >>
> >>Corinna, Yaakov,
> >>
> >>could you take care ?
> >
> >Don't you have write access to cygwin-pkg-maint?  I'm not sure what
> >you're looking for.  Just removing the "ORPHANED" marker?
> >
> >
> >Corinna
> >
> 
> yes, I have.
> 
> What I should do changes
> 
> "ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  -> "Jari Aalto"
> 
> and than back again ?
> 
> Jari doesn't want to take the packages again so
> they are ORPHAN anyway.

Which is rather weird.  Jari, either you maintain the packages
or you don't.  If not, we remove them, if you do, we keep them.


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[jari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1341 bytes --]

On 2015-07-19 10:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| On Jul 19 09:18, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| > On 7/19/2015 9:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
| > >On Jul 19 07:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| > >>On 7/17/2015 11:59 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| > >>>
| > >>>Jari (the not-maintainer) just uploaded aewm++.
| > >>>I updated the list, accordingly.
| > >>>
| > >>
| > >>but I suspect that everything Jari is loading is stacked on
| > >>his load stage area as
| > >>
| > >>"ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  <> "Jari Aalto"
| > >>
| > >>Corinna, Yaakov,
| > >>
| > >>could you take care ?
| > >
| > >Don't you have write access to cygwin-pkg-maint?  I'm not sure what
| > >you're looking for.  Just removing the "ORPHANED" marker?
| > >
| > >
| > >Corinna
| > >
| > 
| > yes, I have.
| > 
| > What I should do changes
| > 
| > "ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  -> "Jari Aalto"
| > 
| > and than back again ?
| > 
| > Jari doesn't want to take the packages again so
| > they are ORPHAN anyway.
| 
| Which is rather weird.  Jari, either you maintain the packages
| or you don't.  If not, we remove them, if you do, we keep them.

Let's put those comment there for recent x64 ports:

   "Jari Aalto (up for grabs)"

I'll continue to keep them under my shelter but anyone wanting to
maintain those are more than welcome to step up.

Jari

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1680 bytes --]

On Jul 19 14:02, jari wrote:
> On 2015-07-19 10:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> | On Jul 19 09:18, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> | > On 7/19/2015 9:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> | > >On Jul 19 07:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> | > >>On 7/17/2015 11:59 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> | > >>>
> | > >>>Jari (the not-maintainer) just uploaded aewm++.
> | > >>>I updated the list, accordingly.
> | > >>>
> | > >>
> | > >>but I suspect that everything Jari is loading is stacked on
> | > >>his load stage area as
> | > >>
> | > >>"ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  <> "Jari Aalto"
> | > >>
> | > >>Corinna, Yaakov,
> | > >>
> | > >>could you take care ?
> | > >
> | > >Don't you have write access to cygwin-pkg-maint?  I'm not sure what
> | > >you're looking for.  Just removing the "ORPHANED" marker?
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >Corinna
> | > >
> | > 
> | > yes, I have.
> | > 
> | > What I should do changes
> | > 
> | > "ORPHANED (Jari Aalto)"  -> "Jari Aalto"
> | > 
> | > and than back again ?
> | > 
> | > Jari doesn't want to take the packages again so
> | > they are ORPHAN anyway.
> | 
> | Which is rather weird.  Jari, either you maintain the packages
> | or you don't.  If not, we remove them, if you do, we keep them.
> 
> Let's put those comment there for recent x64 ports:
> 
>    "Jari Aalto (up for grabs)"

That won't work since upset would choke on this text.

> I'll continue to keep them under my shelter but anyone wanting to
> maintain those are more than welcome to step up.

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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 19/07/2015 13:02, jari wrote:

>
> Let's put those comment there for recent x64 ports:
>
>     "Jari Aalto (up for grabs)"
>
> I'll continue to keep them under my shelter but anyone wanting to
> maintain those are more than welcome to step up.
>
> Jari
>

Jari,
the 64 bit packages are sill in the staging area waiting for !READY.

$ find -type f
./x86/release/aewm++/setup.hint
./x86/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2.tar.xz
./x86/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2-src.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/xgraph/setup.hint
./x86_64/release/xgraph/xgraph-12.1-3-src.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/xgraph/xgraph-12.1-3.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/xgraph/xgraph-12.1.tar.gz
./x86_64/release/aewm++-goodies/setup.hint
./x86_64/release/aewm++-goodies/aewm++-goodies-1.0-2-src.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/aewm++-goodies/aewm++-goodies-1.0-2.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/aewm++/setup.hint
./x86_64/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2-src.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/!mail
./!packages


and don't forget pristine-tar, xdelta is now in place

Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 03/09/2015 15:58, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>
> Jari,
> the 64 bit packages are sill in the staging area waiting for !READY.
>
> $ find -type f
> ./x86/release/aewm++/setup.hint
> ./x86/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2.tar.xz
> ./x86/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2-src.tar.xz
> ./x86_64/release/xgraph/setup.hint
> ./x86_64/release/xgraph/xgraph-12.1-3-src.tar.xz
> ./x86_64/release/xgraph/xgraph-12.1-3.tar.xz
> ./x86_64/release/xgraph/xgraph-12.1.tar.gz
> ./x86_64/release/aewm++-goodies/setup.hint
> ./x86_64/release/aewm++-goodies/aewm++-goodies-1.0-2-src.tar.xz
> ./x86_64/release/aewm++-goodies/aewm++-goodies-1.0-2.tar.xz
> ./x86_64/release/aewm++/setup.hint
> ./x86_64/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2.tar.xz
> ./x86_64/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2-src.tar.xz
> ./x86_64/release/!mail
> ./!packages
>


Hi Jari,
one package is still stacked

./x86_64/release/aewm++/setup.hint
./x86_64/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2.tar.xz
./x86_64/release/aewm++/aewm++-1.1.2-2-src.tar.xz

any problem ?
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Ken Brown]

On 7/17/2015 3:32 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 15 16:12, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 7/15/2015 2:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Jul 15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
>>>> still missing as 64 bit port.
>>>> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
>>>> the duplicates we are down to ~44.
>>>>
>>>> Please see here the analysis :
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
>>>> Feel free to insert comments on the cells.
>>>>
>>>> For what I found :
>>>>
>>>> - half of them are dead upstream so we can directly
>>>> obsolete and don't worry anynore.
>>>>
>>>> - Few are Jary's scripts, so the only porting issue is Jary's time.
>>>>
>>>> - Very few have real porting issue
>>>>
>>>> The only one really interesting for me is Mathomatic and eventually catdoc
>>>> if works with latest word documents.
>>>> (of course I will port pure-ftpd)
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>>
>>> Two points:
>>>
>>> - Shall we remove all 32b-bit only orphaned packages for which we don't
>>>    get a maintainer until, say, end of August?
>>
>> That seems reasonable, as long as there are exceptions for packages where
>> the lack of a 64-bit package is due to genuine porting difficulties.
>> libsigsegv was in that category until yesterday.  Another one I'm aware of
>> is ffcall.
>
> I understand, but they are unmaintained.  So, who's going to check
> if they are buildable as 64 bit packages?

Good point.  In that case, I volunteer to maintain ffcall, just to protect it. 
I have an interest in it because it's used by clisp (and probably nothing else). 
  I already looked into the possibility of a 64-bit port, starting here:

   https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2015-02/msg00245.html

And Reini made a start (https://github.com/rurban/ffcall/tree/win64), but I 
don't know when/if he'll have time to finish it.

Ken

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/17/2015 2:52 PM, Ken Brown wrote:

>>
>> I understand, but they are unmaintained.  So, who's going to check
>> if they are buildable as 64 bit packages?
>
> Good point.  In that case, I volunteer to maintain ffcall, just to
> protect it. I have an interest in it because it's used by clisp (and
> probably nothing else).  I already looked into the possibility of a
> 64-bit port, starting here:
>

ffcall is your

>
> Ken

Re: missing 64bit ports (edit Gdocs problem)

[jari]

On 2015-07-15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
| Dear All,
| I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
| still missing as 64 bit port.
| After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
| the duplicates we are down to ~44.
| 
| Please see here the analysis :
| https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
| Feel free to insert comments on the cells.

For some reason, while logged in to Google, the editing is not possible.

Jari

Re: missing 64bit ports (edit Gdocs problem)

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/16/2015 10:18 AM, jari wrote:
> On 2015-07-15 16:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> | Dear All,
> | I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> | still missing as 64 bit port.
> | After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw ones,
> | the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> |
> | Please see here the analysis :
> | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> | Feel free to insert comments on the cells.
>
> For some reason, while logged in to Google, the editing is not possible.
>
> Jari
>

it is only open for comments, not cell value editing.
see comments on libsigsev column B

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Jon TURNEY]

On 15/07/2015 15:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> still missing as 64 bit port.
> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw
> ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.
>
> Please see here the analysis :
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0

I have built a 64-bit dmalloc for my personal use, so I can ITA if 
Pierre is no longer interested in maintaining dmalloc.

The last upstream release was in 2007, so it can probably be classified 
as 'mature' :D

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 861 bytes --]

On Jul 20 19:16, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 15/07/2015 15:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> >still missing as 64 bit port.
> >After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw
> >ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> >
> >Please see here the analysis :
> >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> 
> I have built a 64-bit dmalloc for my personal use, so I can ITA if Pierre is
> no longer interested in maintaining dmalloc.
> 
> The last upstream release was in 2007, so it can probably be classified as
> 'mature' :D

Like a good cheese? ;)


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 7/20/2015 8:16 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 15/07/2015 15:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
>> still missing as 64 bit port.
>> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw
>> ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.
>>
>> Please see here the analysis :
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
>>
>
> I have built a 64-bit dmalloc for my personal use, so I can ITA if
> Pierre is no longer interested in maintaining dmalloc.
>
> The last upstream release was in 2007, so it can probably be classified
> as 'mature' :D
>


Pierre,
any feedback ?
(assuming you are not in Vacation)

Regards
Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Marco Atzeri]

On 22/07/2015 11:08, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 7/20/2015 8:16 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> On 15/07/2015 15:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
>>> still missing as 64 bit port.
>>> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw
>>> ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.
>>>
>>> Please see here the analysis :
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have built a 64-bit dmalloc for my personal use, so I can ITA if
>> Pierre is no longer interested in maintaining dmalloc.
>>
>> The last upstream release was in 2007, so it can probably be classified
>> as 'mature' :D
>>
>
>
> Pierre,
> any feedback ?
> (assuming you are not in Vacation)
>
> Regards
> Marco

I guess we should consider Jon to be the new maintainer

Marco

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

On Sep  3 15:55, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 22/07/2015 11:08, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >On 7/20/2015 8:16 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> >>On 15/07/2015 15:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>>I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> >>>still missing as 64 bit port.
> >>>After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw
> >>>ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> >>>
> >>>Please see here the analysis :
> >>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I have built a 64-bit dmalloc for my personal use, so I can ITA if
> >>Pierre is no longer interested in maintaining dmalloc.
> >>
> >>The last upstream release was in 2007, so it can probably be classified
> >>as 'mature' :D
> >>
> >
> >
> >Pierre,
> >any feedback ?
> >(assuming you are not in Vacation)
> >
> >Regards
> >Marco
> 
> I guess we should consider Jon to be the new maintainer

ACK.


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Jon TURNEY]

On 03/09/2015 16:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep  3 15:55, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> On 22/07/2015 11:08, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2015 8:16 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>>> On 15/07/2015 15:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>>>> I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
>>>>> still missing as 64 bit port.
>>>>> After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw
>>>>> ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see here the analysis :
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have built a 64-bit dmalloc for my personal use, so I can ITA if
>>>> Pierre is no longer interested in maintaining dmalloc.
>>>>
>>>> The last upstream release was in 2007, so it can probably be classified
>>>> as 'mature' :D
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pierre,
>>> any feedback ?
>>> (assuming you are not in Vacation)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Marco
>>
>> I guess we should consider Jon to be the new maintainer
>
> ACK.

Done.

A few comments on other stuff on that list:

rxvt: I think we should make this obsolete.  urxvt or mintty are 
superior alternatives

xwinwm: I think this can be classed as a 'failed experiment'

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1547 bytes --]

On Sep  4 14:56, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 16:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Sep  3 15:55, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>On 22/07/2015 11:08, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>>On 7/20/2015 8:16 PM, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> >>>>On 15/07/2015 15:24, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >>>>>I spent a bit of time checking the real situation of the packages
> >>>>>still missing as 64 bit port.
> >>>>>After xdelta, bsdiff and iperf porting, without counting the few mingw
> >>>>>ones, the duplicates we are down to ~44.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please see here the analysis :
> >>>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hn7Eaq6djEN9X0jS_AM8-DH_LvP43G9_DXnpTt09Asc/edit#gid=0
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I have built a 64-bit dmalloc for my personal use, so I can ITA if
> >>>>Pierre is no longer interested in maintaining dmalloc.
> >>>>
> >>>>The last upstream release was in 2007, so it can probably be classified
> >>>>as 'mature' :D
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Pierre,
> >>>any feedback ?
> >>>(assuming you are not in Vacation)
> >>>
> >>>Regards
> >>>Marco
> >>
> >>I guess we should consider Jon to be the new maintainer
> >
> >ACK.
> 
> Done.
> 
> A few comments on other stuff on that list:
> 
> rxvt: I think we should make this obsolete.

ACK.

> xwinwm: I think this can be classed as a 'failed experiment'

What does that mean in terms of the cygwin-pkg-list?


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Jon TURNEY]

On 04/09/2015 15:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep  4 14:56, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> xwinwm: I think this can be classed as a 'failed experiment'
>
> What does that mean in terms of the cygwin-pkg-list?

I guess it means that we won't make a 64 bit package.

Making xwinwm obsolete doesn't make much sense until the support for it 
in xserver is removed, which I plan to do eventually.

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 682 bytes --]

On Sep  7 15:01, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 04/09/2015 15:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Sep  4 14:56, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> >>xwinwm: I think this can be classed as a 'failed experiment'
> >
> >What does that mean in terms of the cygwin-pkg-list?
> 
> I guess it means that we won't make a 64 bit package.
> 
> Making xwinwm obsolete doesn't make much sense until the support for it in
> xserver is removed, which I plan to do eventually.

But we could remove it from cygwin-64bit-missing, isn't it, Yaakov?


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: 819 bytes --]

Re: missing 64bit ports

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 17:11 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep  7 15:01, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> > On 04/09/2015 15:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Sep  4 14:56, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> > >>xwinwm: I think this can be classed as a 'failed experiment'
> > >
> > >What does that mean in terms of the cygwin-pkg-list?
> > 
> > I guess it means that we won't make a 64 bit package.
> > 
> > Making xwinwm obsolete doesn't make much sense until the support for it in
> > xserver is removed, which I plan to do eventually.
> 
> But we could remove it from cygwin-64bit-missing, isn't it, Yaakov?

I'd prefer to leave it in until Jon decides to drop it entirely.

--
Yaakov