* Cygwin package naming?
@ 2011-09-01 1:43 Luke Kendall
2011-09-01 1:53 ` Larry Hall (Cygwin)
2011-09-01 4:34 ` Charles Wilson
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Luke Kendall @ 2011-09-01 1:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin; +Cc: audit
Can someone with some official Cygwin standing tell me how the Cygwin
package names correspond with the "official" names of the packages,
chosen by the package owners? In other words, how are the Cygwin
package names determined? (My hope is that the "official" name is used,
possibly with "cygwin" added to it in some form.)
I'm asking because I'm finding Cygwin packages that contain no license
information, at least in the compiled form (e.g. gawk, libiconv2). So
I'm thinking that in such cases, I can modify my Cygwin license-finding
script to look up the package by name on freshmeat and try to find the
license from there.
But that is pointless if the Cygwin package name may have the same name
as a freshmeat package, but is in fact some other software.
Regards,
luke
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin package naming?
2011-09-01 1:43 Cygwin package naming? Luke Kendall
@ 2011-09-01 1:53 ` Larry Hall (Cygwin)
2011-09-01 2:04 ` Christopher Faylor
2011-09-01 8:01 ` Luke Kendall
2011-09-01 4:34 ` Charles Wilson
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Larry Hall (Cygwin) @ 2011-09-01 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On 8/31/2011 9:43 PM, Luke Kendall wrote:
> Can someone with some official Cygwin standing tell me how the Cygwin
> package names correspond with the "official" names of the packages, chosen
> by the package owners? In other words, how are the Cygwin package names
> determined? (My hope is that the "official" name is used, possibly with
> "cygwin" added to it in some form.)
Sorry, I have no badge and gun but perhaps I will do.
> I'm asking because I'm finding Cygwin packages that contain no license
> information, at least in the compiled form (e.g. gawk, libiconv2). So I'm
> thinking that in such cases, I can modify my Cygwin license-finding script
> to look up the package by name on freshmeat and try to find the license from
> there.
>
> But that is pointless if the Cygwin package name may have the same name as a
> freshmeat package, but is in fact some other software.
How about <http://cygwin.com/setup.html>?
Aside: I had to muster all my strength to keep from using the phrase "Use
the source Luke!" I expect you never tire of that. ;-)
--
Larry
_____________________________________________________________________
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin package naming?
2011-09-01 1:53 ` Larry Hall (Cygwin)
@ 2011-09-01 2:04 ` Christopher Faylor
2011-09-01 8:01 ` Luke Kendall
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2011-09-01 2:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:53:23PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>On 8/31/2011 9:43 PM, Luke Kendall wrote:
>> Can someone with some official Cygwin standing tell me how the Cygwin
>> package names correspond with the "official" names of the packages, chosen
>> by the package owners? In other words, how are the Cygwin package names
>> determined? (My hope is that the "official" name is used, possibly with
>> "cygwin" added to it in some form.)
>
>Sorry, I have no badge and gun but perhaps I will do.
Larry, you don't need no steenking badge - as long a you have a gun.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin package naming?
2011-09-01 1:43 Cygwin package naming? Luke Kendall
2011-09-01 1:53 ` Larry Hall (Cygwin)
@ 2011-09-01 4:34 ` Charles Wilson
2011-09-01 8:16 ` Luke Kendall
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Charles Wilson @ 2011-09-01 4:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On 8/31/2011 9:43 PM, Luke Kendall wrote:
> I'm asking because I'm finding Cygwin packages that contain no license
> information, at least in the compiled form (e.g. gawk, libiconv2).
None of the "dll" packages contain license files; they are supposed to
only contain the dll itself. Usually the license files wind up in the
"main" package, or a "-doc" package.
However I think your BEST bet would be to do the following...get
setup.ini from $favorite_mirror. Every record beginning with
'@ package'
will have one or more 'source:' entries -- except for some _obsolete
packages, but we don't care about those because they will just be empty
tarballs, so no source necessary. Multiple '@ package' will refer to
the same 'source:'
With some judicious coding (*), you should be able to flip that around,
and create a database that represents the information the other way:
<some source entry>-<VER-N>
@ package <1>-<VER-N>
@ package <2>-<VER-N>
@ package <3>-<VER-N>
<some source entry>-<VER-M> [same "package", different version]
@ package <1>-<VER-M>
@ package <2>-<VER-M>
@ package <3>-<VER-M>
<another source entry>-<VER-P>
@ package <4>-<VER-P>
@ package <5>-<VER-P>
I doubt the license would often change between versions of the same
package, but it HAS been known to happen.
Now, you can find the <package>s for which you can't identify the
license, and either (a) find another package in the same "family" --
e.g. derived from the same source -- for which you DO know the license.
WIN!
If *all* of the "child" packages of a given source have an unknown
license, well -- then you can get the -src package itself and troll
around in it, or check freshmeat. Usually the -src packages are named
pretty simply:
<upstream name>-<upstream ver>-<cygwin release>-src.tar.*
Watch out for this: some packages have different licenses for different
pieces. The "libiconv" group of packages specifies that the *libraries*
are LGPL, but the *app* is GPL. This means:
libcharset1: LGPL
libiconv2: LGPL
libiconv: GPL
Also, gettext group is similar; some of the libs and apps are GPL, and
some of the apps and libs are LGPL. Fortunately, they are segregated in
the cygwin packages:
libasprintf0: LGPL
libintl8: LGPL
libgettextpo0: GPL
gettext: LGPL
gettext-devel GPL
Fortunately, that sort of structure is rare.
(*) Maybe borrow from genini, or upset?
--
Chuck
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin package naming?
2011-09-01 1:53 ` Larry Hall (Cygwin)
2011-09-01 2:04 ` Christopher Faylor
@ 2011-09-01 8:01 ` Luke Kendall
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Luke Kendall @ 2011-09-01 8:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin; +Cc: audit
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 9:43 PM, Luke Kendall wrote:
>> Can someone with some official Cygwin standing tell me how the Cygwin
>> package names correspond with the "official" names of the packages,
>> chosen
>> by the package owners? In other words, how are the Cygwin package names
>> determined? (My hope is that the "official" name is used, possibly with
>> "cygwin" added to it in some form.)
>
> Sorry, I have no badge and gun but perhaps I will do.
>
>> I'm asking because I'm finding Cygwin packages that contain no license
>> information, at least in the compiled form (e.g. gawk, libiconv2). So
>> I'm
>> thinking that in such cases, I can modify my Cygwin license-finding
>> script
>> to look up the package by name on freshmeat and try to find the
>> license from
>> there.
>>
>> But that is pointless if the Cygwin package name may have the same
>> name as a
>> freshmeat package, but is in fact some other software.
>
> How about <http://cygwin.com/setup.html>?
>
Thanks! Yes, I think that should be enough (it certainly looks like a
public statement of Cygwin's package naming policy, so that's good
enough for me):
"Package file naming
Package naming scheme: use the vendor's version plus a release suffix
for ports of existing packages"
> Aside: I had to muster all my strength to keep from using the phrase "Use
> the source Luke!" I expect you never tire of that. ;-)
>
>
Ah, yes, very true. Not to mention when I eat with my fingers ("Use the
forks, Luke!").
Thanks, Larry!
luke
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cygwin package naming?
2011-09-01 4:34 ` Charles Wilson
@ 2011-09-01 8:16 ` Luke Kendall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Luke Kendall @ 2011-09-01 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin; +Cc: audit
Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 9:43 PM, Luke Kendall wrote:
>
>> I'm asking because I'm finding Cygwin packages that contain no license
>> information, at least in the compiled form (e.g. gawk, libiconv2).
>>
>
> None of the "dll" packages contain license files; they are supposed to
> only contain the dll itself. Usually the license files wind up in the
> "main" package, or a "-doc" package.
>
Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. Though gawk didn't have one. But I'll
have a bit more of a look around inside the tarballs, manually.
> However I think your BEST bet would be to do the following...get
> setup.ini from $favorite_mirror. Every record beginning with
> '@ package'
> will have one or more 'source:' entries -- except for some _obsolete
> packages, but we don't care about those because they will just be empty
> tarballs, so no source necessary. Multiple '@ package' will refer to
> the same 'source:'
>
>
So, basically I think you're saying I should look inside the "source:"
instead of the "install:" (which is where I've *been* looking).
Because I have to use a mix of algorithm and *heuristics* to find the
license files, I'd prefer to try the heuristics on the "install:" tar
file, just because the search space (no. of files) is much smaller.
Thanks for the suggestion, though, it sounds sensible - I'll have a
manual look inside gawk's at least and see if that looks promising, and
if so I'll modify the script to look inside the "source:" as a fallback.
> With some judicious coding (*), you should be able to flip that around,
> and create a database that represents the information the other way:
>
> <some source entry>-<VER-N>
> @ package <1>-<VER-N>
> @ package <2>-<VER-N>
> @ package <3>-<VER-N>
> <some source entry>-<VER-M> [same "package", different version]
> @ package <1>-<VER-M>
> @ package <2>-<VER-M>
> @ package <3>-<VER-M>
> <another source entry>-<VER-P>
> @ package <4>-<VER-P>
> @ package <5>-<VER-P>
>
>
I don't think I need to do that inversion - currently if I find the
source licenses in package 1, and it's also used for package 2, then the
script will automatically find the licenses for package 2.
> I doubt the license would often change between versions of the same
> package, but it HAS been known to happen.
>
>
Sure. At the moment, I'm only looking in the most recent version, too.
I think looking in the source is more likely to find it if there's no
license in the "install:" tarball. I can't imagine someone deliberately
stripping the license files out of a package. That'd be just weird.
> Now, you can find the <package>s for which you can't identify the
> license, and either (a) find another package in the same "family" --
> e.g. derived from the same source -- for which you DO know the license.
> WIN!
>
> If *all* of the "child" packages of a given source have an unknown
> license, well -- then you can get the -src package itself and troll
> around in it, or check freshmeat. Usually the -src packages are named
> pretty simply:
> <upstream name>-<upstream ver>-<cygwin release>-src.tar.*
>
> Watch out for this: some packages have different licenses for different
> pieces. The "libiconv" group of packages specifies that the *libraries*
> are LGPL, but the *app* is GPL. This means:
> libcharset1: LGPL
> libiconv2: LGPL
> libiconv: GPL
>
> Also, gettext group is similar; some of the libs and apps are GPL, and
> some of the apps and libs are LGPL. Fortunately, they are segregated in
> the cygwin packages:
> libasprintf0: LGPL
> libintl8: LGPL
> libgettextpo0: GPL
> gettext: LGPL
> gettext-devel GPL
>
>
Tell me about it. "base-files" and "cygwin" are two good examples. :-)
> Fortunately, that sort of structure is rare.
>
> (*) Maybe borrow from genini, or upset?
>
> --
> Chuck
>
>
>
> --
> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
>
Thanks for all that!
Regards,
luke
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-01 8:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-01 1:43 Cygwin package naming? Luke Kendall
2011-09-01 1:53 ` Larry Hall (Cygwin)
2011-09-01 2:04 ` Christopher Faylor
2011-09-01 8:01 ` Luke Kendall
2011-09-01 4:34 ` Charles Wilson
2011-09-01 8:16 ` Luke Kendall
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).