no more package moratorium?

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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/

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/

tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Markus Hoenicka]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
 > http://lilypond.org/wiki/?TroubleshootingWindows).  We currently use
 > and distribute MikTeX, because it works reliable, and right out of the
 > box.

You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the
latest Internet Explorer.

 >  But I'd much rather we could use tetex.  Using MikTeX from
 > cygwin is `cygpath hell'.

I have instructions about installing a SGML system on Windows which
also uses TeX for the printable output:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/cygbook1.html

I provide a very simple shell script (for SGML->PS/PDF
transformations) that takes care of the 'cygpath hell'. It is not that
hard. It used to work for MiKTeX and works now for fpTeX and for
Cygwin teTeX (and even for TeX on Unix platforms).

 > 
 > > Please try to provide useful bug reports. "Is broke, please
 > > fix" does not count as useful, IMHO.
 > 
 > Tetex-beta, as installed by setup.exe (v1.3.5) fails the first simple
 > LaTeX test:
 > 
 >     tineke@DOOS ~$ latex sample2e
 >     This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.3)
 >     I can't find the format file `latex.fmt'!
 >     tineke@DOOS $ uname -a
 >     CYGWIN_98-4.10 DOOS 1.3.5(0.47/3/2) 2001-11-13 23:16 i586 unknown
 > 

Did you install the teTeX texmf tree? Just installing Tetex-beta is
not enough, as explained by the Tetex-beta readme. This was also
discussed on this list right after the first release of this
package.

regards,
Markus

-- 
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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Charles Wilson]

Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> 
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
>  > http://lilypond.org/wiki/?TroubleshootingWindows).  We currently use
>  > and distribute MikTeX, because it works reliable, and right out of the
>  > box.
> 
> You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the
> latest Internet Explorer.

Are you saying MikTeX only works on WXP?  WRONG.  I've run MikTeX 2.1 on
W98, WNT, W2K (and have no reason to assume it won't work under WMe.) 
Now, I'm not arguing against tetex, but let's confine the arguments to
factual ones, not FUD.

Are you saying MikTeX only works with IE6.0?  Again, WRONG. I've used
MikTeX with IE5.0, 5.5, 5.5sp1, and 5.5sp2.  If you wish to keep your
IE4, then you can download the appropriate DLLs that enable the setup
engine separately -- details given at the MikTeX website.

Again, stick to facts, not FUD.

> 
>  >  But I'd much rather we could use tetex.  Using MikTeX from
>  > cygwin is `cygpath hell'.

I guess.  I've never had many problems.  I use MikTeX + cygwin + make
all the time, and rarely have to resort to cygpath (of course, I usually
build using only relative directories, so D:\\ vs. /cygdrive/d isn't
really an issue for me)

There are arguments in favor of tetex over MikTeX, but the "latest
Windows" or "latest IE" are not among them.

--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/

Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Markus Hoenicka]

Charles Wilson writes:
 > > You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the
 > > latest Internet Explorer.
 > 
 > Are you saying MikTeX only works on WXP?  WRONG.  I've run MikTeX 2.1 on
 > W98, WNT, W2K (and have no reason to assume it won't work under WMe.) 
 > Now, I'm not arguing against tetex, but let's confine the arguments to
 > factual ones, not FUD.
 > 
 > Are you saying MikTeX only works with IE6.0?  Again, WRONG. I've used
 > MikTeX with IE5.0, 5.5, 5.5sp1, and 5.5sp2.  If you wish to keep your
 > IE4, then you can download the appropriate DLLs that enable the setup
 > engine separately -- details given at the MikTeX website.
 > 
 > Again, stick to facts, not FUD.
 > 

Ok, "latest" was a bit of an exaggeration. Fact is that the MiKTeX
installer needs versions of Windows DLLs which are *not* in e.g. a
WinNT4 installation up to Service Pack 5 (the latest that I've
installed). I bet it won't work on Win95 either. The MiKTeX maintainer
used to distribute these DLLs but he does so no more. You wrongly
assume that everyone happily uses Internet Explorer, so this is not a
reasonable path to provide the missing DLLs. So on an older Windows
system *without* Internet Explorer MiKTeX will not install. Period.

(Please excuse my rants about MiKTeX. IMHO it is bad software design
to couple a widely ported software like TeX to the Windows/IE update
spiral by means of the installation software. The Cygwin and fpTeX
installers show that this is not necessary)

regards,
Markus

-- 
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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Markus Hoenicka <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu> writes:

> Did you install the teTeX texmf tree? Just installing Tetex-beta is
> not enough, as explained by the Tetex-beta readme.

This is exacly why I asked if there was any chance if this would get
fixed (.. is not enough), or if tetex-beta would be removed or marked
experimental again with this lifted package moratorium new strictness.

It would be Very Good (TM), if installing a package (and its
dependencies, eg, tetex-texmf) would be `enough' for the package to
work.  This is what Debian and Red Hat packages do, usually.

Having a broken package that doesn't get fixed by it's maintainer is
arguably worse than having none at all.  Maybe Cygwin should introduce
something like Debian's Non-maintainer uploads to address this problem?

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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <janneke@gnu.org>


> Having a broken package that doesn't get fixed by it's maintainer is
> arguably worse than having none at all.  Maybe Cygwin should introduce
> something like Debian's Non-maintainer uploads to address this
problem?

NMU's require a consistent and self documenting package management
system - which we do not have today. Once we have that, then I've no
problem with this concept.

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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Markus Hoenicka <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu> writes:

> You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the
> latest Internet Explorer.

Strange, we haven't had any complaints.  It seemst that MiKTeX
installs and runs flawlessly.  Note that, of course, MiKTeX is
packaged in a tarball and installed through setup.exe.  Maybe our
Windows users are all using that latest software?

> I have instructions about installing a SGML system on Windows which
> also uses TeX for the printable output:
> 
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/cygbook1.html

Thanks, but I don't think that would do.  Currently, windows users run
setup.exe, and they get a working LilyPond environment.  We get lots
of questions and complaints if it doesn't work that way.  Even if
there are simple, step by step, instructions on what to do after
running setup.exe.

> I provide a very simple shell script (for SGML->PS/PDF
> transformations) that takes care of the 'cygpath hell'. It is not
> that hard.

Yes, we distribute shell scripts too, that cygpath the tex/mf
environment settings.  But this is all rather ugly.  mktextfm and such
don't really work, when triggered from the kpathsea lib.

> It used to work for MiKTeX and works now for fpTeX and for
> Cygwin teTeX (and even for TeX on Unix platforms).

Ah, but then you know how difficult it can be to write or debug a
texmf.conf, and why you don't want users that haven't ever heard of
TeX or environment variables (or tar for that matter) to even have to
touch a tex installation?  (Unless you live from giving support,
perhaps :-)

> Did you install the teTeX texmf tree?

No, I installed tetex-beta, that's all the tetex that setup.exe will
install, right?  That's why we still have to distribute and maitain
our own, modified setup.exe and repository (apart from the just lifted
package moratorium).

> Just installing Tetex-beta is not enough, as explained by the
> Tetex-beta readme.

Yes, I know.  That's why we can't use it.  Users in general won't read
READMEs, let alone they would be able to follow simple instructions
:-(

The fact that there's a README with instructions, instead of an
additional tetex package, for example, tells me that there is some
intelligent user-interaction required.

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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Charles Wilson]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> 
> Markus Hoenicka <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu> writes:
> 
> > You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the
> > latest Internet Explorer.
> 
> Strange, we haven't had any complaints.  It seemst that MiKTeX
> installs and runs flawlessly.  Note that, of course, MiKTeX is
> packaged in a tarball and installed through setup.exe.

Note to cygwin folks: MikTeX has it's own setup.exe, based on a
completely different codebase.  (BTW, I thought MikTeX and its packages
were packaged as .cab files, not tarballs -- .tgz.  I guess I always
associate "tarball" with "tar was used to create")

[see note below]

> Maybe our
> Windows users are all using that latest software?
> 
> > I have instructions about installing a SGML system on Windows which
> > also uses TeX for the printable output:
> >
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/cygbook1.html
> 
> Thanks, but I don't think that would do.  Currently, windows users run
> setup.exe, and they get a working LilyPond environment.  We get lots
> of questions and complaints if it doesn't work that way.  Even if
> there are simple, step by step, instructions on what to do after
> running setup.exe.

Again, the MikTeX setup is not the cygwin setup.

[see note below]

> No, I installed tetex-beta, that's all the tetex that setup.exe will
> install, right?  That's why we still have to distribute and maitain
> our own, modified setup.exe and repository (apart from the just lifted
> package moratorium).

Okay, now this sounds like lilypond is using a modified *cygwin*
setup.exe. 

Does lilypond distribute it's own version of MiKTeX, using the cygwin
setup.exe to do the installation (of the custom MikTeX, and the lilypond
stuff)? 

Geez.  I started out trying to clarify the issue, and ended up confusing
myself.

:-P

--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/

Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Charles Wilson <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu> writes:

> Okay, now this sounds like lilypond is using a modified *cygwin*
> setup.exe. 

Yes.  There was a moratorium on packages, so to get cygwin's setup.exe
to download and install the precompiled lilypond tarball (and guile,
and an out-of-the-box-working tex), there was no choice but use a
modified version.

> Does lilypond distribute it's own version of MiKTeX, using the cygwin
> setup.exe to do the installation (of the custom MikTeX, and the lilypond
> stuff)? 

Yes, indeed, that's it.  I think there have been attempts to fix
tetex-beta, to work right out of the box, but up till now, no-one has
successfully done this and contributed it.  So, we continue to include
miktex...

> Geez.  I started out trying to clarify the issue, and ended up confusing
> myself.

:-)

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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Markus Hoenicka]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
 > Strange, we haven't had any complaints.  It seemst that MiKTeX
 > installs and runs flawlessly.  Note that, of course, MiKTeX is
 > packaged in a tarball and installed through setup.exe.  Maybe our
 > Windows users are all using that latest software?

Is it really only me running WinNT without IE > 2?

 > > Did you install the teTeX texmf tree?
 > 
 > No, I installed tetex-beta, that's all the tetex that setup.exe will
 > install, right?  That's why we still have to distribute and maitain
 > our own, modified setup.exe and repository (apart from the just lifted
 > package moratorium).
 > 
 > > Just installing Tetex-beta is not enough, as explained by the
 > > Tetex-beta readme.
 > 
 > Yes, I know.  That's why we can't use it.  Users in general won't read
 > READMEs, let alone they would be able to follow simple instructions
 > :-(
 > 
 > The fact that there's a README with instructions, instead of an
 > additional tetex package, for example, tells me that there is some
 > intelligent user-interaction required.
 > 

Now I see. We're talking about semi-intelligent end-users ;-/ I see no
easy way how Cygwin setup.exe could provide a full TeX system unless a
copy of the teTeX texmf tree is made part of the distribution. Would
that be possible?

regards,
Markus

-- 
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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Robert Collins]

>  > > Just installing Tetex-beta is not enough, as explained by the
>  > > Tetex-beta readme.
>  >
>  > Yes, I know.  That's why we can't use it.  Users in general won't
read
>  > READMEs, let alone they would be able to follow simple instructions
>  > :-(
>  >
>  > The fact that there's a README with instructions, instead of an
>  > additional tetex package, for example, tells me that there is some
>  > intelligent user-interaction required.

Agreed. If there is missing files/a missing package then that needs to
be addressed in setup/the packages. having a README and user interaction
isn't always a bad thing, but in this case it sounds like it is.

...
> copy of the teTeX texmf tree is made part of the distribution. Would
> that be possible?

Jerome, oh Jerrrrooooome, care to comment on either including the texmf
tree (whatever that is) or does it require adding a new pacakge?

And if it needs a new package - do you want to do that, or is it up for
grabs?

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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Markus Hoenicka]

The texmf tree is a tar.gz file available at every CTAN server which
includes all but the binary files for a teTeX system. This is
platform-independent, as these are only text files.

With the new dependence stuff in setup it *could* be made a separate
package. I have no idea about licensing issues, though.

regards,
Markus

Robert Collins writes:
 > Jerome, oh Jerrrrooooome, care to comment on either including the texmf
 > tree (whatever that is) or does it require adding a new pacakge?
 > 
 > And if it needs a new package - do you want to do that, or is it up for
 > grabs?

-- 
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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Jerome BENOIT]

Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> 
> The texmf tree is a tar.gz file available at every CTAN server which
> includes all but the binary files for a teTeX system. This is
> platform-independent, as these are only text files.
> 
> With the new dependence stuff in setup it *could* be made a separate
> package. I have no idea about licensing issues, though.

I have nothing to add.

Best wishes,
Jerome BENOIT



> 
> regards,
> Markus
> 
> Robert Collins writes:
>  > Jerome, oh Jerrrrooooome, care to comment on either including the texmf
>  > tree (whatever that is) or does it require adding a new pacakge?
>  >
>  > And if it needs a new package - do you want to do that, or is it up for
>  > grabs?
> 
> --
> 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/

-- 
  *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤    Jerome BENOIT, Ph.D.    *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤
                  Institute of Molecular Biology
               Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena
             Winzerlaer Strasse 10, Jena 07745, Germany
  *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤    JGMBenoit@wanadoo.fr    *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤

--
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: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerome BENOIT" <520066587150-0001@t-online.de>


>
>
> Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> >
> > The texmf tree is a tar.gz file available at every CTAN server which
> > includes all but the binary files for a teTeX system. This is
> > platform-independent, as these are only text files.
> >
> > With the new dependence stuff in setup it *could* be made a separate
> > package. I have no idea about licensing issues, though.
>
> I have nothing to add.

Unless I'm mistaken, you are the current Textex-beta maintainer. So you need
to decide whether you will add this texmf stuff to tetex-beta, or whether a
new package that contains it is needed. (I supect a new package makes sense
if the texmf stuff doesn't change every time you compile the binaries).

If a new package - you don't need to be the texmf package maintainer, but
you can be if you want to.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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 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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

----- 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?

[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?

[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]

> >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/

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?

[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/