[ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Hi folks --

I'm trying this for the second and final time, just in case this got
ignored earlier because of formal mistakes in the submission, or
holidays, or ...

It's a package that our project
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/astromate/) would benefit immensely
from, as the routine of installing cygwin, selecting (all of the) the
required packages and compiling astrometry.net is beyond the skills of
the target audience (amateur astronomers).  Not included in any of the
major distros.

Included is a small subset of the freely available Tycho-2 star
catalogue, which can be used for testing the installation:

cd /usr/local/astrometry/examples; ../bin/solve-field.exe apod4.jpg

For a comprehensive sky catalogue, see
http://trac.astrometry.net/browser/trunk/src/astrometry/GETTING-INDICES

category: Science
requires: cairo libcairo2 python-cairo libnetpbm10 netpbm libpng14
libjpeg8 zlib zlib0 python python-numpy pkg-config cygwin
sdesc:    "Astrometry.net astrometrical solver."
ldesc:    "Astrometry.net analyses an astronomical image (photograph of the
night sky) to output, among other things, the central coordinate of the image,
the visible field of view, and the list of deep sky objects potentially
visible within the field."

wget \
  http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1.tar.bz2
\
  http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1-src.tar.bz2
\
  http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Corinna Vinschen]

Hi Jussi,

On Oct  4 11:02, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> Hi folks --
> 
> I'm trying this for the second and final time, just in case this got
> ignored earlier because of formal mistakes in the submission, or
> holidays, or ...
> 
> It's a package that our project
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/astromate/) would benefit immensely
> from, as the routine of installing cygwin, selecting (all of the) the
> required packages and compiling astrometry.net is beyond the skills of
> the target audience (amateur astronomers).  Not included in any of the
> major distros.
> 
> Included is a small subset of the freely available Tycho-2 star
> catalogue, which can be used for testing the installation:
> 
> cd /usr/local/astrometry/examples; ../bin/solve-field.exe apod4.jpg
> 
> For a comprehensive sky catalogue, see
> http://trac.astrometry.net/browser/trunk/src/astrometry/GETTING-INDICES
> 
> category: Science
> requires: cairo libcairo2 python-cairo libnetpbm10 netpbm libpng14
> libjpeg8 zlib zlib0 python python-numpy pkg-config cygwin
> sdesc:    "Astrometry.net astrometrical solver."
> ldesc:    "Astrometry.net analyses an astronomical image (photograph of the
> night sky) to output, among other things, the central coordinate of the image,
> the visible field of view, and the list of deep sky objects potentially
> visible within the field."
> 
> wget \
>   http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1.tar.bz2
> \
>   http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1-src.tar.bz2
> \
>   http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint

first of all, you need 5 votes from other package maintainers to get
the package into the distro, since it's not in any major Linux distro.

Apart from that, your packaging is wrong.  You've put everything under
/usr/local/astrometry, but for an official distro package, you should
follow the usual directory layout as outlined in
http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents
Nothing ever in the distro should go into /usr/local.  That dir is
reserved for *local* stuff on the user's machine.

UI binaries under /usr/bin, include files under /usr/include/astrometry,
helper stuff under /usr/share/astrometry, etc.


Corinna

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

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Peter Li]

On 10/4/2011 1:02 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
<snip>
> It's a package that our project
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/astromate/) would benefit immensely
> from, as the routine of installing cygwin, selecting (all of the) the
> required packages and compiling astrometry.net is beyond the skills of
> the target audience (amateur astronomers).  Not included in any of the
> major distros.
<snip>

I'm curious, partly for myself.  Would it not be a fairly simple 
alternative for your users if you distributed a binary package and told 
them that installing Cygwin is a prereq for running your binary 
(assuming it is)?  List, is there a reason this should not be done?

Thanks,
Peter

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

> I'm curious, partly for myself.  Would it not be a fairly simple alternative
> for your users if you distributed a binary package and told them that
> installing Cygwin is a prereq for running your binary (assuming it is)?
>  List, is there a reason this should not be done?

That's how it'll be done if the package doesn't get the required
votes.  In this case the present packaging would be fine, ie. it would
go under /usr/local.
The downside of this would be that users will have to satisfy the
dependencies by theirselves -- not a big trouble when compared with
having to compile the software.

Got a good "D'OH" moment out of Corinnas remark -- will fix the packaging ASAP.

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 10/4/2011 4:02 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote:

> category: Science
> requires: cairo libcairo2 python-cairo libnetpbm10 netpbm libpng14
> libjpeg8 zlib zlib0 python python-numpy pkg-config cygwin
> sdesc:    "Astrometry.net astrometrical solver."
> ldesc:    "Astrometry.net analyses an astronomical image (photograph of the
> night sky) to output, among other things, the central coordinate of the image,
> the visible field of view, and the list of deep sky objects potentially
> visible within the field."

+1.

However, as Corinna pointed out, there are some issues with the
packaging.  I'll take a look this weekend and come up with some
suggestions for you.

FYI, you probably don't need to list both "zlib" and "zlib0" as
requires: (most packages need just the dll, in zlib0).  Ditto for
"cairo" and "libcairo2" -- you probably only need libcairo2. Also, it is
no longer recommended to include 'cygwin' in the requires: list -- it is
assumed that cygwin is a requirement for everything.

--
Chuck

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Marco Atzeri]

On 10/5/2011 6:01 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 4:02 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
>
>> category: Science
>> requires: cairo libcairo2 python-cairo libnetpbm10 netpbm libpng14
>> libjpeg8 zlib zlib0 python python-numpy pkg-config cygwin
>> sdesc:    "Astrometry.net astrometrical solver."
>> ldesc:    "Astrometry.net analyses an astronomical image (photograph of the
>> night sky) to output, among other things, the central coordinate of the image,
>> the visible field of view, and the list of deep sky objects potentially
>> visible within the field."
>
> +1.
>
> However, as Corinna pointed out, there are some issues with the
> packaging.  I'll take a look this weekend and come up with some
> suggestions for you.
>
> FYI, you probably don't need to list both "zlib" and "zlib0" as
> requires: (most packages need just the dll, in zlib0).  Ditto for
> "cairo" and "libcairo2" -- you probably only need libcairo2. Also, it is
> no longer recommended to include 'cygwin' in the requires: list -- it is
> assumed that cygwin is a requirement for everything.
>
> --
> Chuck
>

+1 . Same comment about missing package procedure

This upstream package is not really thought for easy porting,
it inglobes a lot of library including gsl-1.14 while should be better
to link with cygwin gsl.

Regards
Marco

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Bump, if only to show that I'm serious about maintaining the package.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> +1 . Same comment about missing package procedure

Thanks for the vote.  I'm sorry but if there's still an issue about
packaging, or procedure, I need it pointed out.
AFAIK the package is OK now.

> This upstream package is not really thought for easy porting,
> it inglobes a lot of library including gsl-1.14 while should be better
> to link with cygwin gsl.

Agreed.  If this is a showstopper, I can check out if it works OK with
the stock GSL.
To the best of my knowledge astrometry.net doesn't actually change
anything in GSL, they just
omit what's not required.

+3 at the moment ...

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Chris Sutcliffe]

On 18 October 2011 07:21, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> +3 at the moment ...

+1

Chris

-- 
Chris Sutcliffe
http://emergedesktop.org
http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Ken Brown]

On 10/18/2011 7:49 AM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 07:21, Jussi Kantola wrote:
>> +3 at the moment ...
>
> +1

+1

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Thanks for everyone for reviewing and voting!

If I understand correctly, the package still needs a GTG.
I just noticed I've placed the header files in the binary archive,
where they shouldn't be needed.  Would it be better to fix this in a
RFU after GTG (I'm thinking this way the votes apply to the package
that will be uploaded (i hope :)), or should I update/fix the present version?

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Bump.  The package has the 5 votes required for inclusion of a "new"
package, still missing the GTG.  If someone knows the package is not
GTG, can I please get directions about what's wrong.  The project that
sort of needs astrometry.net in the Cygwin repos is close to its first
publicized release (in fact, we're just waiting for the package
approval); check it out at http://sourceforge.net/p/astrotortilla/

Meanwhile,

wget \
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1-src.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Oct 30 23:10, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> Bump.  The package has the 5 votes required for inclusion of a "new"
> package, still missing the GTG.  If someone knows the package is not
> GTG, can I please get directions about what's wrong.  The project that
> sort of needs astrometry.net in the Cygwin repos is close to its first
> publicized release (in fact, we're just waiting for the package
> approval); check it out at http://sourceforge.net/p/astrotortilla/
> 
> Meanwhile,
> 
> wget \
> http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1.tar.bz2
> \
> http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1-src.tar.bz2
> \
> http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint

I hoped that somebody who voted on the package would do the final
GTG, but in vain it seems.

Anyway, I just had a look.  The packaging now looks basically good.  One
issue I still have with the package is the big number of non-standard
binaries in /usr/bin.

Is it really necessary to have all the binaries as user-accessible
binaries in /usr/bin?  Or are many of the binaries just called from
another (or other) binaries which serve as the primary UI?  What also
bugs me are the generic names of the binaries.  Plotstuff, merge-index,
tablist, tabsort, checktree, ...  This all sounds not much like
astronomer stuff.
So, I would prefer to split the binaries into two groups:

- UI binary (or binaries) into /usr/bin

- Helper binaries into /usr/share/astrometry/bin

There's also still the issue with usr/lib/astrometry/libbackend.so.
If that's really a shared lib, it should be called cygbackend.dll
and should reside in /usr/bin.  If the binaries are using it, they
should also be linked against it, rather than being linked statically.


Corinna

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

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 11/3/2011 8:02 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I hoped that somebody who voted on the package would do the final
> GTG, but in vain it seems.

Sorry...I had intended to, but got swamped with other stuff. :-(

> Anyway, I just had a look.  The packaging now looks basically good.  One
> issue I still have with the package is the big number of non-standard
> binaries in /usr/bin.
>
> Is it really necessary to have all the binaries as user-accessible
> binaries in /usr/bin?  Or are many of the binaries just called from
> another (or other) binaries which serve as the primary UI?  What also
> bugs me are the generic names of the binaries.  Plotstuff, merge-index,
> tablist, tabsort, checktree, ...  This all sounds not much like
> astronomer stuff.
> So, I would prefer to split the binaries into two groups:
>
> - UI binary (or binaries) into /usr/bin
>
> - Helper binaries into /usr/share/astrometry/bin

FHS says that architecture-dependent files should go under /usr/lib/ not 
/usr/share...so

	/usr/lib/astrometry/bin

--
Chuck

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Nov  3 08:55, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 8:02 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I hoped that somebody who voted on the package would do the final
> >GTG, but in vain it seems.
> 
> Sorry...I had intended to, but got swamped with other stuff. :-(
> 
> >Anyway, I just had a look.  The packaging now looks basically good.  One
> >issue I still have with the package is the big number of non-standard
> >binaries in /usr/bin.
> >
> >Is it really necessary to have all the binaries as user-accessible
> >binaries in /usr/bin?  Or are many of the binaries just called from
> >another (or other) binaries which serve as the primary UI?  What also
> >bugs me are the generic names of the binaries.  Plotstuff, merge-index,
> >tablist, tabsort, checktree, ...  This all sounds not much like
> >astronomer stuff.
> >So, I would prefer to split the binaries into two groups:
> >
> >- UI binary (or binaries) into /usr/bin
> >
> >- Helper binaries into /usr/share/astrometry/bin
> 
> FHS says that architecture-dependent files should go under /usr/lib/
> not /usr/share...so
> 
> 	/usr/lib/astrometry/bin

Uh, yes, indeed.  Thanks for spotting that.


Corinna

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

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Is it really necessary to have all the binaries as user-accessible
> binaries in /usr/bin?  Or are many of the binaries just called from
> another (or other) binaries which serve as the primary UI?

The latter was true.  I updated the packages as per your instructions:
the actual binaries are now in /usr/lib/astrometry/bin, whereas two
user interface commands are PATH-setting shell scripts,
/usr/bin/solve-field and /usr/bin/wcsinfo.  Solve-field is the actual
astrometry.net solver, whereas wcsinfo is used to extract World
Coordinate System data from the output generated by solve-field.

There may be more commands that should be available in the default
PATH; I'm sure the astrometry.net community will notify me if this is
the case.

> There's also still the issue with usr/lib/astrometry/libbackend.so.
> If that's really a shared lib, it should be called cygbackend.dll
> and should reside in /usr/bin.  If the binaries are using it, they
> should also be linked against it, rather than being linked statically.

I dug a little deeper into it, and to my best knowledge the .so was
being used only by two Python-scripts, which weren't even installed by
the Makefile.  So I'm assuming it's either a WIP or obsolete code.  I
modified the package source (and Makefile) to reflect Cygwin's naming
scheme, however, the shared lib is _not_ installed anymore (neither in
the binary package, nor by the Makefile in the source package).  I
haven't noticed anything breaking up due to this.

Package filenames are the same, but the contents have been updated.

wget \
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1-src.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Andrew Schulman]

+1

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

I've updated the package as per instructions from this thread (fixed
the paths, dropped the unnecessary libs).
Hopefully I got it right this time -- I've found a new respect for
package maintainers of all my favorite distros,
this stuff requires more concentration and care than actually
programming the contents! ;)

As a side note, I occasionally have to run the program
(solve-field.exe) twice, as on the first attempt
it dies complaining of a slowly loading DLL (_functools).  Is this
normal?  I'm doing this in a Win7 virtual machine...

wget \
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1-src.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Marco Atzeri]

On 10/6/2011 3:05 PM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> I've updated the package as per instructions from this thread (fixed
> the paths, dropped the unnecessary libs).
> Hopefully I got it right this time -- I've found a new respect for
> package maintainers of all my favorite distros,
> this stuff requires more concentration and care than actually
> programming the contents! ;)
>
> As a side note, I occasionally have to run the program
> (solve-field.exe) twice, as on the first attempt
> it dies complaining of a slowly loading DLL (_functools).  Is this
> normal?  I'm doing this in a Win7 virtual machine...
>
> wget \
> http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1.tar.bz2
> \
> http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-1-src.tar.bz2
> \
> http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint
>

Hi Jussi,
could you clarify the usage/scope of
usr/lib/astrometry/libbackend.so ?

for what I see, none of the 77 exe you have in
    usr/bin
is using it.

Regards
Marco

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> Hi Jussi,
> could you clarify the usage/scope of
> usr/lib/astrometry/libbackend.so ?

I'm not a programmer of astrometry.net, and don't know how it works
internally (except that it's looking for
"stars" in the image to be solved, then constructs quads from the
stars and matches the quads to an index).
However I had to modify backend-main.c so that the config file (which
defines the location of index files)
could be read from cygwin's preferred location,
/usr/share/astrometry/etc/backend.cfg.

From backend-main.c:

/**
 * Accepts an augmented xylist that describes a field or set of fields to solve.
 * Reads a config file to find local indices, and merges information about the
 * indices with the job description to create an input file for
'blind'.  Runs blind
 * and merges the results.
 */

Not supposing everyone's an amateur astronomer, please allow me to decipher:

field = field of view, starfield, the area of the sky that's contained
in the image that is to be solved;
solving = figuring out the sky coordinates of the field
indices = files containing the known coordinates of celestial objects
(esp. stars)
blind = blind solver/solving, ie. no other fore-knowledge of the
contained field is required

> for what I see, none of the 77 exe you have in
>   usr/bin
> is using it.

At least solve-field.exe (and/or the tools called by solve-field) uses
it, as it was complaining about
missing files before I did the modification.  I don't know enough
about the linking of cygwin software
to comment why it's not showing in f.e. "ldd /usr/bin/solve-field.exe".

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Sorry for my linebreaking, gmail has been messing it up lately :/

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Bumping up (is this cool, or am I being too spammy?)

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:54:18PM +0300, Jussi Kantola wrote:
>Bumping up (is this cool, or am I being too spammy?)

You are being spammy.

cgf

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 10/7/2011 12:18 PM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> However I had to modify backend-main.c so that the config file (which
> defines the location of index files)
> could be read from cygwin's preferred location,
> /usr/share/astrometry/etc/backend.cfg.

That's a little odd, and I don't think that's exactly what was meant by 
the documentation http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents.

I don't think this is a showstopper for this release, but ordinarily 
configuration files belong in the top-level /etc directory.  However, 
once installed there, a name like "backend.cfg" is poorly chosen, since 
it doesn't really indicate what package it belongs to, and thus might 
conflict with some other package.

/usr/share/<pkg>/ is usually used for other, more extensive data files 
and support -- e.g. that's probably where your star catalog files 
(indexes?) ought to go.

Furthermore, if backend.cfg is user-editable, then you would probably 
want to install it into

	/etc/defaults/etc/backend.cfg

and include a postinstall/preremove scripts here:

	(a) /etc/postinstall/astrometry.net.sh
	(b) /etc/preremove/astrometry.net.sh

whose job is to (a) copy the "default" version into /etc on install, IF 
no such file already exists, and (b) remove the /etc/backend.cfg file on 
uninstall, if and only if it is identical to the /etc/defaults/ one.  See
	/etc/postinstall/tcp_wrappers.sh [or .done]	
	/etc/preremove/tcp_wrappers.sh
for and example.  FYI, cygport will handle creating these scripts for 
you (almost) automatically, via a single command:

	make_etc_defaults /etc/backend.cfg

All this complexity is so that user-modified configuration settings 
don't get clobbered by package updates, but non-modified files will get 
updated.



However, what is probably a showstopper are various lines like this in 
the build:

# Try building and installing python spherematch module
make install-spherematch
make[2]: Entering directory 
`/usr/src/packages/tmp/astrometry.net-0.38-1/libkd'
python setup.py build --force --build-base build --build-platlib build/lib
running build
running build_py
creating build
creating build/lib
copying spherematch.py -> build/lib
running build_ext
building 'spherematch_c' extension
creating build/temp.cygwin-1.7.9-i686-2.6
gcc -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wall 
-Wstrict-prototypes 
-I/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/numpy/core/include/numpy 
-I../qfits-an/include -I../util -I. -I/usr/include/python2.6 -c 
pyspherematch.c -o build/temp.cygwin-1.7.9-i686-2.6/pyspherematch.o
gcc -shared -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base 
build/temp.cygwin-1.7.9-i686-2.6/pyspherematch.o libkd.a 
../util/libanfiles.a ../util/libanutils.a ../qfits-an/lib/libqfits.a 
-L/usr/lib/python2.6/config -lpython2.6 -o build/lib/spherematch_c.dll
cp build/lib/spherematch_c.so spherematch_c.so
cp: cannot stat `build/lib/spherematch_c.so': No such file or directory
make[2]: *** [spherematch_c.so] Error 1


IOW, cygwin python's distutils is _doing the right thing_ -- creating 
the plugin with the name spherematch_c.dll -- but the Makefile in 
astrometry.net thinks the plugin will always be named spherematch_c.so 
and reports an error when it tries to install the latter file.


Also, when I did 'make install ...' my lib/astrometry/bin directory was 
empty.


I can't help but think this will cause problems for your users...



Now, this bit is interesting:
-       mkdir -p $(INSTALL_DIR)/python/astrometry/libkd
+       mkdir -p $(INSTALL_DIR)/share/astrometry/python/astrometry/libkd

Normally, python extensions go under the "real" python dir:

	/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/<pkgname>/...

But...this whole build system doesn't really support that; it hardcodes 
the destination path and then adds that path to sys.path via the 
"application" .py files; when it really should use some mechanism to 
find the entry in $python's sys.path list which contains "site-packages".

So...accepting that, the python stuff should ALSO go under /lib rather 
than /share, because (a) the .pyc files are platform specific, and (b) 
the .dll's which ought to go there are also platform specific.


....so, not GTG.  Also, you missed Corinna's statement: "If the binaries 
are using it (the libbackend library), they should also be linked 
against [the DLL], rather than being linked statically."

Your build still links against libbackend.a, rather than cygbackend.dll.

I'm trying to massage your -src package to DTRT.  Stay tuned.

--
Chuck

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> I don't think this is a showstopper for this release, but ordinarily
> configuration files belong in the top-level /etc directory.  However, once
> installed there, a name like "backend.cfg" is poorly chosen, since it
> doesn't really indicate what package it belongs to, and thus might conflict
> with some other package.

Which is precisely the reason I've tried to keep everything under
paths that have "astrometry" in them; as has already been pointed out
(and as you point out below), a.n isn't really (at this point)
designed for portability and/or 3rd party vendor distribution.  I
actually shuddered when I realized there would be a "cygbackend.dll",
as it sounds ALL wrong :-)

> /usr/share/<pkg>/ is usually used for other, more extensive data files and
> support -- e.g. that's probably where your star catalog files (indexes?)
> ought to go.

Yes; indexes = star catalogs.

> Also, when I did 'make install ...' my lib/astrometry/bin directory was
> empty.

That's odd, I was building and installing it all night last night and
the folder was being updated duly.  Looking at the source package, the
Makefile seems fine (at least on that regard).

> ....so, not GTG.  Also, you missed Corinna's statement: "If the binaries are
> using it (the libbackend library), they should also be linked against [the
> DLL], rather than being linked statically."

Oops, and roger.

> I'm trying to massage your -src package to DTRT.  Stay tuned.

Thank you very much and sorry for the trouble I'm causing!  I'll have
another session with the package myself, paying attention to what
you've said.  Also, I guess it's about time I get in contact with an
active a.n developer to get clarification on some suspicions I've had
... but thanks again!

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Yaakov (Cygwin/X)]

On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 02:29 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 12:18 PM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> > However I had to modify backend-main.c so that the config file (which
> > defines the location of index files)
> > could be read from cygwin's preferred location,
> > /usr/share/astrometry/etc/backend.cfg.
> 
> That's a little odd, and I don't think that's exactly what was meant by 
> the documentation http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents.
> 
> I don't think this is a showstopper for this release, but ordinarily 
> configuration files belong in the top-level /etc directory.  However, 
> once installed there, a name like "backend.cfg" is poorly chosen, since 
> it doesn't really indicate what package it belongs to, and thus might 
> conflict with some other package.

Then this should be /etc/astrometry/backend.cfg instead.

> IOW, cygwin python's distutils is _doing the right thing_ -- creating 
> the plugin with the name spherematch_c.dll -- but the Makefile in 
> astrometry.net thinks the plugin will always be named spherematch_c.so 
> and reports an error when it tries to install the latter file.

So patch the Makefile.in.

> Now, this bit is interesting:
> -       mkdir -p $(INSTALL_DIR)/python/astrometry/libkd
> +       mkdir -p $(INSTALL_DIR)/share/astrometry/python/astrometry/libkd
> 
> Normally, python extensions go under the "real" python dir:
> 
> 	/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/<pkgname>/...
> 
> But...this whole build system doesn't really support that; it hardcodes 
> the destination path and then adds that path to sys.path via the 
> "application" .py files; when it really should use some mechanism to 
> find the entry in $python's sys.path list which contains "site-packages".
> 
> So...accepting that, the python stuff should ALSO go under /lib rather 
> than /share, because (a) the .pyc files are platform specific, and (b) 
> the .dll's which ought to go there are also platform specific.

I'm not so sure about (a), but my Linux VMs already use Python 2.7 so I
couldn't check.  That aside, I have no problem with application-specific
pure-Python code in /usr/share/$PN, as they serve no purpose outside the
given application, and many packages do this, in fact.  Obviously DLL
extensions can't go there though.

> ....so, not GTG.  Also, you missed Corinna's statement: "If the binaries 
> are using it (the libbackend library), they should also be linked 
> against [the DLL], rather than being linked statically."
> 
> Your build still links against libbackend.a, rather than cygbackend.dll.
> 
> I'm trying to massage your -src package to DTRT.  Stay tuned.

Good luck, it sounds like this software is quite unpolished.  No wonder
it's not in the distros yet.


Yaakov

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 11/4/2011 11:11 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> software is quite unpolished.

 From reading the web page, it appears to be a research project by a 
couple of grad students -- with goals of supporting amateur and even 
professional astronomers by automating what is currently a 
labor-intensive task.

So...like all research projects, it appears to suffer from 
"get-it-done-itis" focused on Linux and/or BSD, with little attention 
paid to portability.  That's...problematic when going to any flavor of 
win32, including cygwin.

I mean really: hand-editing makefiles? no configure scripts (some 
subdirs have them, but they are invoked as part of the top-level make, 
which doesn't).

IMO the whole thing needs to be autotoolized, but I'm not going there.

OTOH, I just spent a couple hours adding $(EXE) to about a thousand 
makefile rules, only to watch it blow up because of some built-in rule I 
can't turn off (where is it COMING from!!!??) that adds "foo.exe.o" to 
the dependencies and then looks for "foo.exe.c" to build it...Aaarrrggh....

--
Chuck

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 11/4/2011 2:29 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Your build still links against libbackend.a, rather than cygbackend.dll.
>
> I'm trying to massage your -src package to DTRT. Stay tuned.

I've posted a revised version of your package here:

http://cygwin.cwilson.fastmail.fm/astrometry.net-0.38-2-src.tar.bz2
http://cygwin.cwilson.fastmail.fm/astrometry.net-0.38-2.tar.bz2

Inside the -src tarball is the *original* upstream sources 
(astrometry.net-0.38.tar.bz2), a few patches, and a .cygport script. to 
rebuild, unpack the -src and do:

	$ cygport astrometry.net-0.38-2.cygport all

You should probably do that, to ensure that the build procedure works on 
your machine. Also, to test the resuts; I have no idea how to use this 
stuff.

Finally: the backend.exe program is linked to cygbackend.dll, which are 
both in /usr/lib/astrometry/bin/.  All the python stuff, including three 
extension DLLs, are in /usr/lib/astrometry/python/*/

I modified the build procedure for cygbackend.dll -- it now generates an 
import lib, and it also (re)exports all of the symbols from the other 
(sub)libraries.  That means when linking backend.exe, you don't need to 
list those other dependencies, because cygbackend.dll will satisfy them 
all. (*)

Provided you can rebuild this package on your machine, AND that it 
actually works, consider it GTG.

(*) I did not do this, but because cygbackend now exports all the 
symbols from (e.g.) libanfiles.a, libutils.a, libkd.a, etc, you COULD 
modify the link commands for almost all of the /other/ .exe's in the 
blind/ directory, which currently link against (many) of those static 
libraries, to instead link solely against cygbackend.dll (actually, 
libbackend.dll.a). That would make the entire package MUCH smaller.  But 
it's a lot of work.

--
Chuck

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> You should probably do that, to ensure that the build procedure works on
> your machine. Also, to test the resuts; I have no idea how to use this
> stuff.

It builds fine, and the resulting installation works fine when I put
some sky catalogs in /usr/share/astrometry/data/.  The question
becomes, would it be better to create a separate package
(astrometry.net-data-tycho or such) for the (example/test) catalogs,
than to have them in the binary/source packages?  Theoretically, and I
suppose in eventual actuality as well, there could be many different
sets of catalogs, so separate packaging sounds like the way to go ...

> Provided you can rebuild this package on your machine, AND that it actually
> works, consider it GTG.

With the notice/question above, it worked like a charm -- and I thank
you dearly!

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 11/7/2011 8:18 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> You should probably do that, to ensure that the build procedure works on
>> your machine. Also, to test the resuts; I have no idea how to use this
>> stuff.
> 
> It builds fine, and the resulting installation works fine when I put
> some sky catalogs in /usr/share/astrometry/data/. 

Good news.  Please post *your* rebuilt packages somewhere, so they can
be uploaded.

> The question
> becomes, would it be better to create a separate package
> (astrometry.net-data-tycho or such) for the (example/test) catalogs,
> than to have them in the binary/source packages?  Theoretically, and I
> suppose in eventual actuality as well, there could be many different
> sets of catalogs, so separate packaging sounds like the way to go ...

Definitely separate. However, it may be best not to create any catalog
packages at all, and instead provide helper scripts (in
/usr/lib/astrometry/scripts/ ?) to d/l and install the individual
catalogs.  The reason for this suggestion is twofold.

First, if you create a cygwin package containing the data from catalog
"foo", then cygwin will be *redistributing* that data.  However, many
scientific databases of this sort, while free (gratis) to use, prohibit
redistribution -- everybody is required to get them directly from the
source.  So, for this sort of catalog, a helper script to enable the
end-user to do THAT is the only solution.

Second, these catalogs are HUGE. 70GB? 25GB?  That's 10 to 30 times the
size of the entire cygwin distribution, source and all -- for one
catalog.  Our mirrors probably won't accept that.

>> Provided you can rebuild this package on your machine, AND that it actually
>> works, consider it GTG.
> 
> With the notice/question above, it worked like a charm -- and I thank
> you dearly!

I have to admit, it was pretty painful.  The upstream astrometry guys
really should work on making their project more cross-platform- and
distro-packaging- friendly.  E.g. use the autotools including autoconf,
automake, and libtool throughout, and treat all of the "helper"
libraries -- gsl-an, libkd, liban*, etc -- as libtool "convenience
libraries", link all the utils against the top-level backend lib, ...

"Oh, but we'd lose all the make-it-really-fast fine-tuned CFLAGS
settings in our hand-rolled makefiles" -- fine, create a FastMakefile
that deduces the platform, and invokes (top-level) configure with the
appropriate CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, and LDFLAGS, and tell users to do
	make -f FastMakefile && make
..."Premature optimization is the root of all evil." -- Donald Knuth.
E.g. make it work, THEN make it work fast.

But that's not your problem...nor mine. :-)

Go ahead and post your rebuilt packages, and I'll upload them.  Postpone
the star catalog pkgs and/or "helper scripts" for the -3 release (*)

--
Chuck

(*) howto: drop the scripts in the CYGWIN-PATCHES directory, and add
lines like the following to the end of the src_install() function in the
.cygport file:

	exeinto /usr/lib/astrometry/scripts
	doexe ${C}/my-first-script
	doexe ${C}/my-second-script

Since the scripts would probably use wget or curl to d/l the catalog(s),
you'd want to update the requires: line in your setup.hint.

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Good news.  Please post *your* rebuilt packages somewhere, so they can
> be uploaded.

wget \
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-2.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/astrometry.net-0.38-2-src.tar.bz2
\
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/astrometry.net/setup.hint

> Definitely separate. However, it may be best not to create any catalog
> packages at all, and instead provide helper scripts (in
> /usr/lib/astrometry/scripts/ ?) to d/l and install the individual
> catalogs.  The reason for this suggestion is twofold.

I like this even more.  Yeah, we'll go the dl-script way; for the
initial release, there will be no catalogs included, however, I
modified the cygwin-specific README with instructions for downloading
the previously included tycho*.fits from my own server.  With future
updates, we can have a fuller index from Tycho at f.e. AstroTortillas
site, or then people will just request the indices from
astrometry.net, which is the default procedure anyway.

> I have to admit, it was pretty painful.  The upstream astrometry guys
> really should work on making their project more cross-platform- and
> distro-packaging- friendly.

Yes, while I'm far too happy to have a free astrometrical solver to
actually complain, the codebase sure isn't in the best of shapes for
porting purposes.  I've been down the "where's that coming from"
-route you described in an earlier post  :-)

Once more, thanks for helping out!

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 09:46:21AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>On 11/7/2011 8:18 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> You should probably do that, to ensure that the build procedure works on
>>> your machine. Also, to test the resuts; I have no idea how to use this
>>> stuff.
>> 
>> It builds fine, and the resulting installation works fine when I put
>> some sky catalogs in /usr/share/astrometry/data/. 
>
>Good news.  Please post *your* rebuilt packages somewhere, so they can
>be uploaded.
>
>> The question
>> becomes, would it be better to create a separate package
>> (astrometry.net-data-tycho or such) for the (example/test) catalogs,
>> than to have them in the binary/source packages?  Theoretically, and I
>> suppose in eventual actuality as well, there could be many different
>> sets of catalogs, so separate packaging sounds like the way to go ...
>
>Definitely separate. However, it may be best not to create any catalog
>packages at all, and instead provide helper scripts (in
>/usr/lib/astrometry/scripts/ ?) to d/l and install the individual
>catalogs.  The reason for this suggestion is twofold.
>
>First, if you create a cygwin package containing the data from catalog
>"foo", then cygwin will be *redistributing* that data.  However, many
>scientific databases of this sort, while free (gratis) to use, prohibit
>redistribution -- everybody is required to get them directly from the
>source.  So, for this sort of catalog, a helper script to enable the
>end-user to do THAT is the only solution.
>
>Second, these catalogs are HUGE. 70GB? 25GB?  That's 10 to 30 times the
>size of the entire cygwin distribution, source and all -- for one
>catalog.  Our mirrors probably won't accept that.

I've been trying not to offer an opinion here but it isn't clear to me
why so many people voted +1 for this package.  It seems like we're
adding a huge package to the distribution just to help out a very
miniscule user base.  Do we really need this package in the Cygwin
distribution?

cgf

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 11/7/2011 11:17 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I've been trying not to offer an opinion here but it isn't clear to me
> why so many people voted +1 for this package.  It seems like we're
> adding a huge package

Meh, if you exclude the star catalogs (and I think we should; and the OP 
has agreed to avoid), then bin+src weighs in at 25MB (65MB 
uncompressed), which is pretty large but not unheard of.

Most of that is because it has a ton of exe's, and all but one are 
linked statically to various support libraries.  (Oddly all of those 
libs get dumped together into the DLL, and that dll is used by only one 
client. But, conceivably, the other exes could also link to that dll, 
for a big win: from 45MB uncompressed to approx 2.5MB, based on my 
seat-of-pants calculation).

> to the distribution just to help out a very
> miniscule user base.

Meh, without casting aspersions, I doubt the user base of our various 
specialized math tools -- like singular, octave, fftw3, qhull, etc -- 
are very large in absolute terms.  But...we have maintainers, they 
volunteered and contributed, so here we are.  If they go AWOL, then the 
package gets slapped with _obsolete.

Same deal here.

> Do we really need this package in the Cygwin
> distribution?

Well, not as such, no.  We don't really NEED very much of what's 
currently part of the distro -- but that's never been the justification 
for package acceptance.  Do we "need" fortune or robots?

I think it's kinda cool for cygwin be one of the first (not THE first; 
it's already in BSD ports IIUC) to provide these tools, so that's why I 
voted +1.

However, you're still (one of the) benevolent(?) dictators-for-life. 
Are you exercising a veto?  If so, we can teach the OP how to set up an 
add-on setup.exe repository, like cygwin-ports, which he can host over 
at astronomytortilla or whatever -- so it's not a "disaster" if you are 
vetoing.

--
Chuck

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:49:45PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>On 11/7/2011 11:17 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I've been trying not to offer an opinion here but it isn't clear to me
>> why so many people voted +1 for this package.  It seems like we're
>> adding a huge package
>
>Meh, if you exclude the star catalogs (and I think we should; and the OP 
>has agreed to avoid), then bin+src weighs in at 25MB (65MB 
>uncompressed), which is pretty large but not unheard of.
>
>Most of that is because it has a ton of exe's, and all but one are 
>linked statically to various support libraries.  (Oddly all of those 
>libs get dumped together into the DLL, and that dll is used by only one 
>client. But, conceivably, the other exes could also link to that dll, 
>for a big win: from 45MB uncompressed to approx 2.5MB, based on my 
>seat-of-pants calculation).
>
>> to the distribution just to help out a very
>> miniscule user base.
>
>Meh, without casting aspersions, I doubt the user base of our various 
>specialized math tools -- like singular, octave, fftw3, qhull, etc -- 
>are very large in absolute terms.  But...we have maintainers, they 
>volunteered and contributed, so here we are.  If they go AWOL, then the 
>package gets slapped with _obsolete.
>
>Same deal here.

No.  It's not, and please avoid the obnoxious "Meh"s.  There is no need
for that affectation unless you are purposely trying to offend.

Given this reasoning we might as well do away with votes entirely since
it doesn't really matter if anyone will use the package as long as
someone is willing to support it.

The packages that you are talking about are commonly used Linux
packages, found in other distros.  If we didn't have something like
them people would be asking for them.  You certainly know this.

>>Do we really need this package in the Cygwin distribution?
>
>Well, not as such, no.  We don't really NEED very much of what's
>currently part of the distro -- but that's never been the justification
>for package acceptance.  Do we "need" fortune or robots?

Cygwin is supposed to be like a Linux distro.  Including packages which
come with Linux distros is a no-brainer.  Including a large, specialized
package which is not commonly found on Linux and which has a small user
base is not a no-brainer.

I really can't believe that I have to explain this or that you really
think you're making a valid argument.

>I think it's kinda cool for cygwin be one of the first (not THE first; 
>it's already in BSD ports IIUC) to provide these tools, so that's why I 
>voted +1.

^That is actually the type of answer I was looking for.  I wanted to
know why people thought the package was needed in the distro.

>However, you're still (one of the) benevolent(?) dictators-for-life. 
>Are you exercising a veto?

If I was doing that you would have seen the word "veto" in the message.

Given the fact that the votes needed to trickle in over the course of
more than a month, it seems that most people don't feel very strongly
about including this package.  I understand that the OP wants to have a
convenient way of distributing it to the small number of people who need
it but I don't think that is necessarily a good enough reason for the
package to occupy disk space and bandwidth on sourceware.org and
mirrors, for potential package support to show up in the cygwin mailing
list, and for someone to take time to upload updates to sourceware.org.

I was wondering if anyone else felt like I did about this package.  If
it hadn't required many weeks to get approval + more weeks to get
packaging worked out, it would have gone in without comment from me.
Since it did drag on and required multiple pleading messages to keep
things moving, it certainly seems like there isn't a lot of enthusiasm
for getting this in.

The bottom line is that I was trying to ask why people voted +1.  If it
was just to "help the guy out" then that's not a really good reason for
the package to be in the distro.  If it was because people thought this
was "kinda cool..." then that would imply that there was more thought
involved.

cgf

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Ken Brown]

On 11/8/2011 2:19 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Cygwin is supposed to be like a Linux distro.  Including packages which
> come with Linux distros is a no-brainer.  Including a large, specialized
> package which is not commonly found on Linux and which has a small user
> base is not a no-brainer.
[...]
> Given the fact that the votes needed to trickle in over the course of
> more than a month, it seems that most people don't feel very strongly
> about including this package.  I understand that the OP wants to have a
> convenient way of distributing it to the small number of people who need
> it but I don't think that is necessarily a good enough reason for the
> package to occupy disk space and bandwidth on sourceware.org and
> mirrors, for potential package support to show up in the cygwin mailing
> list, and for someone to take time to upload updates to sourceware.org.
>
> I was wondering if anyone else felt like I did about this package.  If
> it hadn't required many weeks to get approval + more weeks to get
> packaging worked out, it would have gone in without comment from me.
> Since it did drag on and required multiple pleading messages to keep
> things moving, it certainly seems like there isn't a lot of enthusiasm
> for getting this in.
>
> The bottom line is that I was trying to ask why people voted +1.  If it
> was just to "help the guy out" then that's not a really good reason for
> the package to be in the distro.  If it was because people thought this
> was "kinda cool..." then that would imply that there was more thought
> involved.

I was the last person to vote +1, and I have to admit that it was mostly 
to help the guy out.  I regret that I didn't give it more thought.  Now 
that I've seen this discussion, I am no longer in favor of including the 
package in the distro.  I think it would make more sense for the OP to 
set up his own repository.

Ken

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Chris Sutcliffe]

On 8 November 2011 07:44, Ken Brown wrote:
> I was the last person to vote +1, and I have to admit that it was mostly to
> help the guy out.  I regret that I didn't give it more thought.  Now that
> I've seen this discussion, I am no longer in favor of including the package
> in the distro.  I think it would make more sense for the OP to set up his
> own repository.

Much like Ken I wasn't as thorough as I should have been when voting
for the package.  I like the concept of the package, but in all
likelihood I will likely not use it very often.  Following the thread
it looks like the package may not quite be ready for the distro.

Chris

-- 
Chris Sutcliffe
http://emergedesktop.org
http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Well, well.

I'm grateful for esp. the hours Chuck put into this, and for having at
least seen the process and all, but I suppose it's time to end this --
I just can't bear to watch losing all the votes so bravely fought for
;-)

AstroTortilla is fine with a custom repo.  All we ever wanted was to
be able to install astrometry.net with Cygwin's setup.exe.  There were
two reasons for doing the ITP: 1) Astrometry.net is immensely useful,
albeit for a relatively minor userbase (*), and it *will* be part of
both Cygwin and all the other major/applicable distros, eventually 2)
the thought never occured to me that custom repos are possible ...

(*) So-called computerized GOTO telescopes have been sold by the
unknown tens if not hundreds of thousands over the past 10-20yrs.  ALL
of them are essentially fixed by AstroTortilla, which critically
relies on Astrometry.net.  So it may well be that once the word gets
out that there's a GOTO correction program just like the one Hubble
Space Telescope uses, available for amateur astronomers and compatible
with their trusty old mounts, we'll see some downloads.  How many
would we need for it to be considered significant enough?

Is this document still valid?
http://sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/package-server.html
Anything else I need to know?

Thanks once again for your time and effort!  I'm sorry the lessons you
gave me will go down the drain if I won't become a package manager ...
;-)

-- 
jussi

P.S.
If this message doesn't turn out to be the end of story just yet, let
it be known that I will have a look at building the package with
dynamic linking, if package size is deemed a bigger issue than the
superficially miniscule userbase.  It's just there's work (as in
paycheck) to do, and my family has very recently grown by one, so I'm
in no greater hurry with this than before ...

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Charles Wilson]

On 11/9/2011 5:00 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> AstroTortilla is fine with a custom repo.  All we ever wanted was to
> be able to install astrometry.net with Cygwin's setup.exe

OK.

> How many
> would we need for it to be considered significant enough?

No idea.

> Is this document still valid?
> http://sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/package-server.html

Seems accurate -- but it's missing information about gpg security.  I 
think you want "Creating a custom Cygwin package server" -- you probably 
don't want to create or host a full mirror.

> Anything else I need to know?

Here's what I do, locally:

<top>/setup.exe
<top>/genini
<top>/release/foo/foo-1.2.3-1.tar.bz2
<top>/release/foo/foo-1.2.3-1-src.tar.bz2
<top>/release/foo/setup.hint

$ cd cygwin
$ ./genini --recursive release > setup.ini
$ bzip2 -c < setup.ini > setup.bz2

Then, upload setup.ini, setup.bz2, the new tarballs and setup.hint to 
your website, replicating the directory structure (from <top>/ on down).

Now, your users will have to invoke setup.exe with the -X, because 
otherwise setup.exe will expect the setup.ini/bz2 files to be signed. 
However, turning the security measures off is a problem, because then 
your users have no protection against corrupted files on the *main* 
mirrors, either.

So, ideally, you would ALSO sign *your* setup.ini/setup.bz2 files. See 
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2008-08/msg00001.html

Now, this still requires your end users to take an explicit action (see 
item (3i),(3ii),(3iii) in the referenced announcement.)  You could 
enable them to do (3i) or (3iii) via a batch file that you 
distribute...or...

See the cygwin-ports instructions for their users, here:
http://sourceware.org/cygwinports/

In that case, the use of 'cygstart' implies that cygwinports would be 
*added* to an existing cygwin installation; hence a bare-windows 
installation would require two separate setup.exe runs (*). This is 
actually a /good/ thing, because it means there's no confusion between 
"the standard cygwin installation on my box" and "the cygwinports cygwin 
installation on my box" -- your end users would just have one, to which 
they've added the "extra" stuff.

(*) future "update" runs of setup would handle both the 'standard' 
packages and the addons simultaneously.

> Thanks once again for your time and effort!  I'm sorry the lessons you
> gave me will go down the drain if I won't become a package manager ...
> ;-)

You're still managing a package...it just wouldn't be hosted as an 
intrinsic part of the cygwin distribution itself.

--
Chuck

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

Hello, and pardon me for still pestering you.

I've got a custom repo now working with setup.exe -X @
http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla (won't be the final location).
Signatures are more troublesome.  I suspect my .sig files are in a
wrong format, but can't find detailed info on what the correct format
is.  Currently, I've just done

gpg --output setup.ini.sig --sign setup.ini
gpg --output setup.bz2.sig --sign setup.bz2

I also did my own key,

gpg --gen-keys  (to generate a 1024bit DSA key, no passphrase)
gpg --export "Jussi Kantola" > tortilla.gpg

intending to run

setup.exe -K http://rubor.org/astrometrytortilla/tortilla.gpg

However, setup.exe can't verify the signatures.  Error is "Internal
Error: gcrypt library error 163 illegal old tag"

I looked at setup.exe source, for hints on what the signatures should
be like, but got the impression that the full libgcrypt set should be
useable.  Apparently this impression is wrong -- or something.  Help?
:-)

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
> Hello, and pardon me for still pestering you.

Right.  I didn't intend this for the mailing-list.  Also, I think I
just got the signatures working by
using --detach-sig instead of --sign.

Please excuse me my butter-fingers and all that comes with 'em ...

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Jussi Kantola]

The package discussed in this thread is now available via

http://astrotortilla.sourceforge.net/cygwin-custom

-- 
jussi

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Marco Atzeri]

On 11/8/2011 8:19 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:

>
>> I think it's kinda cool for cygwin be one of the first (not THE first;
>> it's already in BSD ports IIUC) to provide these tools, so that's why I
>> voted +1.
>
> ^That is actually the type of answer I was looking for.  I wanted to
> know why people thought the package was needed in the distro.
>
>
> cgf

Of course there is no "need" for such package, but I noticed that all
distro have some astronomical package and at first glance they are
not more used that Astrometry.
The time taken to approve is likely linked to such particular usage.

I looked at the website and they have a community, a mailing list,
a bug tracker and some planning. It has some usage and I can image
that porting to windows with cygwin is much simpler than trying
another route. For that reason I voted +1.

I built it using one of the first trial and I noticed that
the build system is crude and every utility is static linked,
so personally my preference will be a smaller package using dynamic
linking; but it is a personal estetic opinion.
If the package size is a problem we can put it as a condition


Regards
Marco

Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>On 11/8/2011 8:19 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>I think it's kinda cool for cygwin be one of the first (not THE first;
>>>it's already in BSD ports IIUC) to provide these tools, so that's why I
>>>voted +1.
>>
>>^That is actually the type of answer I was looking for.  I wanted to
>>know why people thought the package was needed in the distro.
>
>Of course there is no "need" for such package, but I noticed that all
>distro have some astronomical package and at first glance they are not
>more used that Astrometry.

Sigh.  Ok.  Let me rephrase: "I wanted to know why people thought the
package was useful enough in the distro that they decided to vote for it
knowing that standard Linux distros do not contain the package".

If all distros have an astronomical package why aren't we looking to
get one of those rather than using one that isn't used in other Linux
distros?

>The time taken to approve is likely linked to such particular usage.

I can't precisely parse what you're trying to say but you seem to be
asserting that everyone else who voted +1 has done the same research as
you.  We already know that wasn't true.

>I looked at the website and they have a community, a mailing list,
>a bug tracker and some planning. It has some usage and I can image
>that porting to windows with cygwin is much simpler than trying
>another route. For that reason I voted +1.

I appreciate that you did some real research and came to a valid
conclusion but porting to Cygwin is a tautology here.  It can't be used
as part of a reason to include anything in the distro.

cgf

(I fully expect that at some point in this discussion someone will find
that this package is actually included in Debian or something, rendering
this whole point moot)