Re: no more package moratorium?

Re: no more package moratorium?

[E]

Robert Collins wrote:
>I agree. They must also *At this point* agree to maintain the package do
>upgrades feed patches to the vendor etc, and that they will announce
>publicly if they decide to stop maintaining the package with as much
>warning as possible. Packages with no maintainers are pulled after 3
>months.

And perhaps put a big "[UNMAINTAINED]" on the start of the description for 
that three months to perhaps prompt an enterprising soul to take it 
up?  (Or at least as a warning of it's immanent departure :-)  )

E.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> What about existing packages?  Specifically, it would be grand if
> tetex-beta would either get fixed or removed.

IMO, any "released" tagged package should have it's maintainer, who
decides and tracks done error and bugs. So in ER specification we have
a [package] n <-> 1 [maintainer] relation.

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> I'd very much doubt that Chris would be happy with http basic authentication
> given it's security issues, unless wrapped in SSL. And doing that takes CPU
> which I understand sources.redhat.com to be a little short on right now.

right, SSL-enabling for webdav based uploading and package maintaince
would be easily to implement. I agree with CPU time issue on
sources.redhat.com, that's why I suggest an independant machine for
the whole Cygwin project.

> However, this is not my decision. I just think that a database with web
> interface for maintaining this data is doing it the wrong way around. A web
> interface to view the data yes, and Chris's package list allows that
> trivially. A web interface to change, don't make sense to me. However, if
> you can convince the other current maintainers, and are willing to
> completely rewrite this when setup handles embedded meta data - such as rpm
> has - then I won't object.

Let's see how my prototype design will look like. I think it's the
best way to "see" what we may do with it and then descide if it is
considered usefull.

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 06:29:33PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> That seems a reasonable thing to me.

Yeah, I think we will drop the package moratorium in the next days.

> It does raise an interesting point: who, when, and how, do new packages
> get approved?

That's a problem when getting lots of new packages.  The forum for
discussion and the approval process is cygwin-apps.  However, it's
not the forum to send loads of tar archives so we will have to find
some standarized way as, just as an example:

- Potential contributor announces on cygwin-apps that s/he wants
  to contribute package `foo' with a short description what the
  package does and what has been done to fullfil Cygwin requirements
  (textmode/binmode issues, sending a setup.hint file which shows
  the dependencies to other packages, etc.)

- cygwin-developers discusses if the package should become part of
  the distro and chooses a person from cygwin-developers as approver.

- The contributor gets asked to upload the package (bin+src tar.bz2
  archives) to an upload area on cygwin.com or by sending it to
  the approver.  That's the approver's choice.

- When the approver thinks the package is ok,  the contributor
  is (obligatory!) asked if s/he's willing to maintain the package
  in future and if s/he's willing to announce officially when
  s/he's not anymore willing to maintain the package.

- The package gets uploaded and the contributor becomes official
  Cygwin maintainer for that package.

- When the contributor/maintainer announces to drop maintainership,
  we will ask for another person willing to maintain the package
  further.  If we don't find another person within, say, three months,
  the package will be removed from the distro.

Something like that.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
> > - When the approver thinks the package is ok,  the contributor
> >   is (obligatory!) asked if s/he's willing to maintain the package
> >   in future and if s/he's willing to announce officially when
> >   s/he's not anymore willing to maintain the package.
> 
> Good points. modified slightly
.................................^ and included above
Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stipe Tolj" <tolj@wapme-systems.de>
>
> why? if the metadata is held in a database and all setup.hints are
> generated out of it we have no problems about consistence?!

We've had that - setup.ini was the database, and updating was a PITA,
because it couldn't be easily distributed. Setup.hint allows the
metadata to be altered by the maintainer - without needing a central
repository.

Also, federating a database is _hard_. Federating package metadata by
associating it with the packages is trivial.

I've no objection to you generating a database from the package
metadata, but it *must* be that way around.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
>
> >I think we should either get a consensus from all the package
> >maintainers, or perhaps, wait 3 days for objections. If no
objections,
> >then the package is allowed in. If there are objections, discuss
until
> >resolved. To prevent deadlock, a single individual objecting will not
> >cause a package to be rejected, the objections must be agreed with by
> >other package maintainers.
>
> As long as I get veto power or whatever the opposite of veto power,
> that's fine with me.  I'm not exactly Linus in this situation, I
guess.

Well in this situation you are a package maintainer - the cygwin
package. Just object :].

> I'm not sure that we really need to be this formal, though.  Who's
going
> to be doing the tracking?

How many new packages are we going to get? I can easily keep a notepad
list of packages that have had someone put their hand up for, and every
3 days delete 1 day off the list.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stipe Tolj" <tolj@wapme-systems.de>


> It would be easy to allow package maintainers (via HTTP basic
> authentification and underlying PHP application) to update the
> relevant information in the database.

I'd very much doubt that Chris would be happy with http basic authentication
given it's security issues, unless wrapped in SSL. And doing that takes CPU
which I understand sources.redhat.com to be a little short on right now.

> > Also, federating a database is _hard_. Federating package metadata by
> > associating it with the packages is trivial.
>
> It depends on the design of the database and the access mechanisms,
> IMO.

Really? The replication and merge capability in oracle 8i or above, and in
MSSQL 7 would do it, but even they don't address the trust issues in having
a truely federated system.

However, this is not my decision. I just think that a database with web
interface for maintaining this data is doing it the wrong way around. A web
interface to view the data yes, and Chris's package list allows that
trivially. A web interface to change, don't make sense to me. However, if
you can convince the other current maintainers, and are willing to
completely rewrite this when setup handles embedded meta data - such as rpm
has - then I won't object.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 09:48:49AM +0100, Jesper Eskilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> As long as I get veto power or whatever the opposite of veto power,
>> that's fine with me.  I'm not exactly Linus in this situation, I guess.
>
>The opposite of veto power is probably "nobody gives a damn". ;-)

No, I meant, "Everybody gives a damn but I say yes anyway."

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> I'm not sure that we really need to be this formal, though.  Who's going
> to be doing the tracking?

the package maintainance tracking may be done using a PHP based system
on cygwin.com or an other dedicated site.

I would like to volonteer for the development, as I'm designing it
anyway :)

> Once again, it sounds like another job for a script.  :-)

sort of, yes.

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

> > What about existing packages?  Specifically, it would be grand if
> > tetex-beta would either get fixed or removed.
>
> IMO, any "released" tagged package should have it's maintainer, who
> decides and tracks done error and bugs. So in ER specification we have
> a [package] n <-> 1 [maintainer] relation.

We have that, it's just recorded in the list archives :}. And hopefully
soon to be recorded in setup.hint. IMO this should not be recorded
separately from the package metadata (setup.hint).

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
>
> > It does raise an interesting point: who, when, and how, do new
packages
> > get approved?
>
> That's a problem when getting lots of new packages.  The forum for
> discussion and the approval process is cygwin-apps.  However, it's
> not the forum to send loads of tar archives so we will have to find
> some standarized way as, just as an example:

Tarballs - package quality - are orthogonal to the discussion I was
raising. I've trimmed those aspects out in replying.

> - Potential contributor announces on cygwin-apps that s/he wants
>   to contribute package `foo' with a short description what the
>   package does.

I agree. They must also *At this point* agree to maintain the package do
upgrades feed patches to the vendor etc, and that they will announce
publicly if they decide to stop maintaining the package with as much
warning as possible. Packages with no maintainers are pulled after 3
months.

> - cygwin-developers discusses if the package should become part of
>   the distro and chooses a person from cygwin-developers as approver.

Nope. I don't think this is appropriate. cygwin-developers is for
developers of cygwin1.dll. Last I heard, Linus has no input into what
Redhat put into the (say) the RawHide distro, so why should the
cygwin1.dll developers care what goes into 'cygwin the net
distribution'.

I think we should either get a consensus from all the package
maintainers, or perhaps, wait 3 days for objections. If no objections,
then the package is allowed in. If there are objections, discuss until
resolved. To prevent deadlock, a single individual objecting will not
cause a package to be rejected, the objections must be agreed with by
other package maintainers.

Some sort of voting thing might be nice (mentioning to show I've thought
about it) but for now it seems too hard for too little benefit. I do
like the idea of a sponsor, so

once a package is decided to be allowed in, if its the first package
from the maintainer (ie a new maintainer) then an existing maintainer
must sponsor the package, and vet package quality -
textmode/patches/postinstall scripts etc.

> - When the approver thinks the package is ok,  the contributor
>   is (obligatory!) asked if s/he's willing to maintain the package
>   in future and if s/he's willing to announce officially when
>   s/he's not anymore willing to maintain the package.

Good points. modified slightly

> - When the contributor/maintainer announces to drop maintainership,
>   we will ask for another person willing to maintain the package
>   further.  If we don't find another person within, say, three months,
>   the package will be removed from the distro.

As you can see above, this does not cover getting the tarball into the
net distro: as I said, thats orthogonal.

I think the process for that part should be something like

sponsor (for new maintainers) or maintainer (2nd package or new version
of existing) places the packages files at a URL.
They tell someone from <list of maintainers with write access>.
<someone> uploads to cygwin.com.

If there is _any_ doubt about the package quality, upload it as
experimental. Wait 3 weeks, and if there are no bugs reported, then edit
setup.hint to make that new versiom current.

Thoughts on this?

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:15:55PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Stipe Tolj wrote
>>another issue I have proposed -> a simple bug tracking integration for
>>the package maintainers via the web site.
>
>IIRC, there was a problem with GNATS on sources.redhat.com where
>the proper mailing lists weren't being Cc'ed email that was sent out.
>Was that ever fixed, Chris?

There was a lot of discussion about this in the overseers list.  I
think that everything is ok now.  We upgraded GNATS in July or
so and one of our local mods got dropped.

That ended up causing strange email bounces, in certain situations,
when reporting bugs. 

I think it's fixed now, but I'll feel better about it after a week
or so has gone by with no complaints.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au> writes:

> I think the process for that part should be something like
> 
> sponsor (for new maintainers) or maintainer (2nd package or new
> version
> of existing) places the packages files at a URL.
> They tell someone from <list of maintainers with write access>.
> <someone> uploads to cygwin.com.
> 
> If there is _any_ doubt about the package quality, upload it as
> experimental. Wait 3 weeks, and if there are no bugs reported, then
> edit
> setup.hint to make that new versiom current.
> 
> Thoughts on this?

What about existing packages?  Specifically, it would be grand if
tetex-beta would either get fixed or removed.

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> We've had that - setup.ini was the database, and updating was a PITA,
> because it couldn't be easily distributed. Setup.hint allows the
> metadata to be altered by the maintainer - without needing a central
> repository.

I agree, that's why I mentioned in the file conflict thread:

The package maintaining system should provide _mechanisms_ to support
the package maintainers.

It would be easy to allow package maintainers (via HTTP basic
authentification and underlying PHP application) to update the
relevant information in the database.

This is how my intension from the package maintaining module looks
like.
 
> Also, federating a database is _hard_. Federating package metadata by
> associating it with the packages is trivial.

It depends on the design of the database and the access mechanisms,
IMO.

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> >The opposite of veto power is probably "nobody gives a damn". ;-)
> 
> No, I meant, "Everybody gives a damn but I say yes anyway."

so it's still a veto from the point of definition. It's only a
negative veto within the sum of all elements :]

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Jesper Eskilson]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:

> As long as I get veto power or whatever the opposite of veto power,
> that's fine with me.  I'm not exactly Linus in this situation, I guess.

The opposite of veto power is probably "nobody gives a damn". ;-)

/Jesper
-- 
Jesper Eskilson
Virtutech


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> Nope. I don't think this is appropriate. cygwin-developers is for
> developers of cygwin1.dll. Last I heard, Linus has no input into what
> Redhat put into the (say) the RawHide distro, so why should the
> cygwin1.dll developers care what goes into 'cygwin the net
> distribution'.
> 
> I think we should either get a consensus from all the package
> maintainers, or perhaps, wait 3 days for objections. If no objections,
> then the package is allowed in. If there are objections, discuss until
> resolved. To prevent deadlock, a single individual objecting will not
> cause a package to be rejected, the objections must be agreed with by
> other package maintainers.

I agree with Robert here. A simple -1,0,+1 voting valid from all
current package maintainers should indicate the aprover if the package
is considered "good enough".

-1 for "no, I'm against <fact xy>"
0 for "I have no objections or do not care"
+1 for "yes, go ahead from my point of view"

This way we have a democrative way, but still without unnecessary
reglementations for the aprover. The aprover decides on the global
scope of the votings if the package should be within the official net
distro.

> Some sort of voting thing might be nice (mentioning to show I've thought
> about it) but for now it seems too hard for too little benefit. I do
> like the idea of a sponsor, so

yep, as proclaimed above.

> once a package is decided to be allowed in, if its the first package
> from the maintainer (ie a new maintainer) then an existing maintainer
> must sponsor the package, and vet package quality -
> textmode/patches/postinstall scripts etc.

good point -- package maintainers should be cycling in sponsoring for
new package maintainers. This makes the communication between package
maintainers more reliable and improves the quality of work.

> I think the process for that part should be something like
> 
> sponsor (for new maintainers) or maintainer (2nd package or new version
> of existing) places the packages files at a URL.
> They tell someone from <list of maintainers with write access>.
> <someone> uploads to cygwin.com.
> 
> If there is _any_ doubt about the package quality, upload it as
> experimental. Wait 3 weeks, and if there are no bugs reported, then edit
> setup.hint to make that new versiom current.

A package maintaining system (via the web site) would help here. I had
this in mind for some time. (see my thread on the file conflict
issues).

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

That seems a reasonable thing to me.

It does raise an interesting point: who, when, and how, do new packages
get approved?

(I don't mean the physical quality of the packaging either :}).

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps@hotmail.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:25 AM
Subject: no more package moratorium?


>
> subject asks the question... I gathered that the release of new setup
was
> going to bring the moratorium down ... if so I might start considering
> packaging up nano, assuming I can work out how to patch it
consistantly...
>
> so umm anyone want to give an answer?
>
> Gareth
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> What is wrong with tetex-beta? Could you explain what exactly should
> be fixed? Please try to provide useful bug reports. "Is broke, please
> fix" does not count as useful, IMHO.

another issue I have proposed -> a simple bug tracking integration for
the package maintainers via the web site.

Chris, I would suggest to setup a prototype on a serperate machine and
have the audience pickle on it. It should include 

 a) package maintainance mechanisms
 b) simple bug reporting and tracking for single packages/maintainers
mechanisms

I vote for a PHP based application running a MySQL or PostgreSQL db.

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 12:09:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>And doing that takes CPU which I understand sources.redhat.com to be a
>little short on right now.

I'm actually, this very minute, putting the finishing touches on a
hardware upgrade proposal.

It'll be a very nice machine if I can get what I want.

It's interesting that CPU/disk became an issue as soon as we upgraded
the internet connection.  But, the system is definitely pegged right
now.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Markus Hoenicka]

What is wrong with tetex-beta? Could you explain what exactly should
be fixed? Please try to provide useful bug reports. "Is broke, please
fix" does not count as useful, IMHO.

regards,
Markus

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
 > What about existing packages?  Specifically, it would be grand if
 > tetex-beta would either get fixed or removed.

-- 
Markus Hoenicka, PhD
UT Houston Medical School
Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology
6431 Fannin MSB4.114
Houston, TX 77030
(713) 500-6313, -7477
(713) 500-7444 (fax)
Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Charles Wilson]

Stipe Tolj wrote

> another issue I have proposed -> a simple bug tracking integration for
> the package maintainers via the web site.


IIRC, there was a problem with GNATS on sources.redhat.com where
the proper mailing lists weren't being Cc'ed email that was sent out.
Was that ever fixed, Chris?

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

no more package moratorium?

[Gareth Pearce]

subject asks the question... I gathered that the release of new setup was 
going to bring the moratorium down ... if so I might start considering 
packaging up nano, assuming I can work out how to patch it consistantly...

so umm anyone want to give an answer?

Gareth

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Stipe Tolj]

> > > What about existing packages?  Specifically, it would be grand if
> > > tetex-beta would either get fixed or removed.
> >
> > IMO, any "released" tagged package should have it's maintainer, who
> > decides and tracks done error and bugs. So in ER specification we have
> > a [package] n <-> 1 [maintainer] relation.
> 
> We have that, it's just recorded in the list archives :}. And hopefully
> soon to be recorded in setup.hint. IMO this should not be recorded
> separately from the package metadata (setup.hint).

why? if the metadata is held in a database and all setup.hints are
generated out of it we have no problems about consistence?!

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 09:08:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
>> - cygwin-developers discusses if the package should become part of
>>   the distro and chooses a person from cygwin-developers as approver.
>
>Nope. I don't think this is appropriate. cygwin-developers is for
>developers of cygwin1.dll. Last I heard, Linus has no input into what
>Redhat put into the (say) the RawHide distro, so why should the
>cygwin1.dll developers care what goes into 'cygwin the net
>distribution'.

Yep.

>I think we should either get a consensus from all the package
>maintainers, or perhaps, wait 3 days for objections. If no objections,
>then the package is allowed in. If there are objections, discuss until
>resolved. To prevent deadlock, a single individual objecting will not
>cause a package to be rejected, the objections must be agreed with by
>other package maintainers.

As long as I get veto power or whatever the opposite of veto power,
that's fine with me.  I'm not exactly Linus in this situation, I guess.

I'm not sure that we really need to be this formal, though.  Who's going
to be doing the tracking?

Once again, it sounds like another job for a script.  :-)

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: no more package moratorium?

[Robert Collins]

That seems a reasonable thing to me.

It does raise an interesting point: who, when, and how, do new packages
get approved?

(I don't mean the physical quality of the packaging either :}).

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps@hotmail.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:25 AM
Subject: no more package moratorium?


>
> subject asks the question... I gathered that the release of new setup
was
> going to bring the moratorium down ... if so I might start considering
> packaging up nano, assuming I can work out how to patch it
consistantly...
>
> so umm anyone want to give an answer?
>
> Gareth
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

no more package moratorium?

[Gareth Pearce]

subject asks the question... I gathered that the release of new setup was 
going to bring the moratorium down ... if so I might start considering 
packaging up nano, assuming I can work out how to patch it consistantly...

so umm anyone want to give an answer?

Gareth

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/