gettext latest vers. 0.17

gettext latest vers. 0.17

[wynfield]

Just as the person below noted that the latest version of gettext, 0.17 was needed, I found myself also needing it.  I expect that more and more newer versions and updates will be requiring it.

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-03/msg00220.html

The current cygwin gettext package is over two years old.  The below cygwin archive gives an explanation for this.

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-02/msg00359.html

My question is the usage of "cygport" really required to be used.  I certainly feel that it should not be required and it has certainly appeared to hamper a lot of progress in maintenance and updates of existing packages.

It is a tool, best know by its developer, but it is merely a tool and should not be a required one.  Cygwin already has a specification for packages, the only requirement should be that a package meets that specification, not how it was accomplished.

It would be great to allow that freedom and then we can get a latest update of gettext and all would be happy.

This is my understanding.   Please comment on the "required use" of cygport.  And who said it is required and why.


Cheers,



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

wynfield@gmail.com wrote:
> Just as the person below noted that the latest version of gettext, 0.17
> was needed, I found myself also needing it. I expect that more and more
> newer versions and updates will be requiring it.
> 
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-03/msg00220.html
> 
> The current cygwin gettext package is over two years old. The below
> cygwin
> archive gives an explanation for this.
> 
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2008-02/msg00359.html
> 
> My question is the usage of "cygport" really required to be used. I
> certainly feel that it should not be required and it has certainly appeared
> to hamper a lot of progress in maintenance and updates of existing packages.
> 
> It is a tool, best know by its developer, but it is merely a tool and
> should not be a required one. Cygwin already has a specification for
> packages, the only requirement should be that a package meets that
> specification, not how it was accomplished.
> 
> It would be great to allow that freedom and then we can get a latest
> update of gettext and all would be happy.
> 
> This is my understanding. Please comment on the "required use" of
> cygport.   And who said it is required and why.

The short answer is that usage of cygport is not required.  The slightly
longer answer is that use of cygport has been encouraged but not mandated.
A quick look at the Cygwin Package Contributor's Guide should prove quite
illuminating in this regard <http://cygwin.com/setup.html>.  It doesn't
even mention cygport as an option, which is an oversight for sure, but
should alleviate any concern that cygport is a requirement.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[Brian Dessent]

wynfield@gmail.com wrote:

> My question is the usage of "cygport" really required to be used.  I certainly 
Of course it's not required.  The maintainer can use any method he
wants.  The fact that Chuck switched *to* cygport from the previous
homegrown g-b-s method he used should tell you something about how much
time it can potentially save.

> feel that it should not be required and it has certainly appeared to hamper a lot of progress in maintenance and updates of existing packages.

You take one instance of one package being delayed and extrapolate that
to some kind of general statement, but you neglect the hundreds of
packages where cygport works smoothly without fuss and allows for
maintainers to put out updated packages with greater speed than the old
g-b-s.  Again, the choice to use cygport is entirely up to the
maintainer, so they would not be using it if they thought it would not
save them time.

> It is a tool, best know by its developer, but it is merely a tool and should not be a required one.  Cygwin already has a specification for packages, the only requirement should be that a package meets that specification, not how it was accomplished.

There is no such requirement.  The maintainer can do it however he
likes.  The fact is that Chuck has chosen to trade the temporary delay
of one package for the eventual infrastructure improvement which would
save more time in the future.  That's his choice.  As current maintainer
on record for approximately 100 packages in the distro I think he has a
pretty good idea what all is involved and what will save him time in the
future.

> It would be great to allow that freedom and then we can get a latest update of gettext and all would be happy.

Build gettext yourself if you want a newer version.  This is FOSS,
you're not helpless.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:56:15PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Build gettext yourself if you want a newer version.  This is FOSS,
>you're not helpless.

TIFYNH.  I like it.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[Eric Lilja]

Brian Dessent wrote:
[snip]
Sorry for this hijack but, Brian, is there in a fact a mail adress brian 
{at} dessent {dot} net and do you check it or are you simply ignoring 
the questions I mailed you? ;)

- Eric


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Eric Lilja wrote:
> Brian Dessent wrote:
> [snip]
>Sorry for this hijack but, Brian, is there in a fact a mail adress
>brian {at} dessent {dot} net and do you check it or are you simply
>ignoring the questions I mailed you?  ;)

If you are asking private cygwin questions and expecting personal tech
support then I wouldn't be surprised if he was ignoring you.

In any event, please don't hijack discussions for your own private
purposes.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[Eric Lilja]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Eric Lilja wrote:
>> Brian Dessent wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Sorry for this hijack but, Brian, is there in a fact a mail adress
>> brian {at} dessent {dot} net and do you check it or are you simply
>> ignoring the questions I mailed you?  ;)
> 
> If you are asking private cygwin questions and expecting personal tech
> support then I wouldn't be surprised if he was ignoring you.
> 
> In any event, please don't hijack discussions for your own private
> purposes.
> 
> cgf
> 

Well, it wasn't a request for help with a problem but I was interested 
on what Brian had to say personally on something that is related to 
cygwin and I asked in the mail if I should post it on this list even 
though I was hoping for his personal comments.
When I have a general cygwin problem I need help with I post here and 
I've done that many times and usually receive great help from several 
posters.
Anyway, I will say no more about it in this thread.

- Eric


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

gcc 4.3 (was: gettext latest vers. 0.17)

[Brian Dessent]

Eric Lilja wrote:

> Sorry for this hijack but, Brian, is there in a fact a mail adress brian
> {at} dessent {dot} net and do you check it or are you simply ignoring
> the questions I mailed you? ;)

Yes, that is my email address and yes I read messages sent there.  I'm
sorry that I didn't reply.  I generally ignore or deprioritize people
who email me directly asking something because I feel that replying on
mailing lists is a lot better use of my time than sending personal
emails.  Further, I just got back from traveling and had a backlog of
thousands of messages across a number of mailing lists, so I've been
working my way through that.

The topic that you asked about (gcc 4.3) is complex, and I feel it has
been covered in the archives sufficiently that I didn't feel like
writing another essay on the topic.  It is far from "quiet" as you
suggest.  Here are some recent threads:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.user/25885/focus=25930
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2007-11/threads.html#00051 (and
continued in december:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2007-12/threads.html#00053)

In short: Exception handling is a complicated situation, both because of
the lack of upstream support for shared target libraries as well as the
desire to transition away from SJLJ.  I think the above threads pretty
clearly spell out what issues are still required to be addressed and
what pains we may encounter when moving to a very different version of
gcc as the default.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[wynfield]

Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net> wrote:

> wynfield@gmail.com wrote:
 
> > My question is the usage of "cygport" really required to be used.  I certainly 
> Of course it's not required.  The maintainer can use any method he
> wants.  The fact that Chuck switched *to* cygport from the previous
> homegrown g-b-s method he used should tell you something about how much
> time it can potentially save.

But in the end it apparently didn't save time.  There s a learning curve of course.
Maybe it'd be helpful to learn for several packages
 
> > feel that it should not be required and it has certainly appeared to hamper a lot of progress in maintenance and updates of existing packages.
> 
> You take one instance of one package being delayed and extrapolate that
> to some kind of general statement,

No extrapolation, just noting that fact that real trade offs are concerned, and its use is not in all cases appropriate or desired.  No disrespect to cygports author, intended.
> 
> > It is a tool, best know by its developer, but it is merely a tool and should not be a required one.  Cygwin already has a specification for packages, the only requirement should be that a package meets that specification, not how it was accomplished.

> 
> There is no such requirement.  The maintainer can do it however he
> likes.

That's good to know.

> ......


Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net> wrote:
> 
> Build gettext yourself if you want a newer version.  This is FOSS,
> you're not helpless.
> 
> Brian
> 

Brian, its known at times, that you make really lame statements, but the one above is beneath even you, I thought.

Regardless, the new version has already been built and install. A fact you seemed to miss.  My concern was for others, another fact that you seemed to and miss.

Regards,

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[wynfield]

Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:56:15PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
> >Build gettext yourself if you want a newer version.  This is FOSS,
> >you're not helpless.
> 
> TIFYNH.  I like it.
> 
> cgf

Chris, you must not have been fully coherent when you wrote the above.  Brian's silly and rude statements should not be allowed on the list.

For example if Brain was not helpless, he would be more positive and make less silly statments, you.

regards

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gcc 4.3 (was: gettext latest vers. 0.17)

[Tatsuro MATSUOKA]

Hello

I have read your reply with a great interest.
I do not know that you have remember it we have discussed the EH on octave.
I do not want to discuss the matter here.

I also have build GCC-4.3.0(gcc, gfortran, g++).
The build by gnuplot4.3 by GCC-4.3.0.
It have been done without problem and the performace of binaries are fairly good compared to those
built by the standard the cygwin GCC.

Of course, it is a fortunate example.  In principle, there exist many problems to use it.
I have tried to octave build by GCC-4.3.0, it failed as expected.

For users standpoint, which EH is better sjlj ot dwarf2 does not matter.
Users always would like to seek the fast and stable compliers.

I respect that cygwin team staffs are paying effors for preparing good complilers.

I hope that thier effrots will be successful in the cygwin 1.7.

Sincerely,

Tatsuro MATSUOKA  


 


--- Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net> wrote:
> 
> Yes, that is my email address and yes I read messages sent there.  I'm
> sorry that I didn't reply.  I generally ignore or deprioritize people
> who email me directly asking something because I feel that replying on
> mailing lists is a lot better use of my time than sending personal
> emails.  Further, I just got back from traveling and had a backlog of
> thousands of messages across a number of mailing lists, so I've been
> working my way through that.
> 
> The topic that you asked about (gcc 4.3) is complex, and I feel it has
> been covered in the archives sufficiently that I didn't feel like
> writing another essay on the topic.  It is far from "quiet" as you
> suggest.  Here are some recent threads:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.user/25885/focus=25930
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2007-11/threads.html#00051 (and
> continued in december:
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2007-12/threads.html#00053)
> 
> In short: Exception handling is a complicated situation, both because of
> the lack of upstream support for shared target libraries as well as the
> desire to transition away from SJLJ.  I think the above threads pretty
> clearly spell out what issues are still required to be addressed and
> what pains we may encounter when moving to a very different version of
> gcc as the default.


--------------------------------------
GANBARE! NIPPON! Win your ticket to Olympic Games 2008.
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/ganbare-nippon/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 12:55:02PM +0900, wynfield wrote:
>Brian Dessent wrote:
>>Build gettext yourself if you want a newer version.  This is FOSS,
>>you're not helpless.
>
>Brian, its known at times, that you make really lame statements, but
>the one above is beneath even you, I thought.

Actually it is not known at all.  Brian is one of the most insightful
people I've seen on this or any other mailing list.

>Regardless, the new version has already been built and install.  A fact
>you seemed to miss.

That's because you never mentioned that fact.

I'd say that you that the most obvious "miss" in this pointless thread
came about when you misinterpreted a frustrated message from a
maintainer as a policy statement rather than a rant.  The end result is
just about a 100% pointless email thread.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/