From ihsan at opencsw.org Sun May 1 14:11:30 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (Ihsan Dogan) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 14:11:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nsd Message-ID: <201105011211.p41CBUG5019147@login.bo.opencsw.org> * nsd: patchlevel upgrade - from: 3.2.7,REV=2011.01.30 - to: 3.2.8,REV=2011.05.01 + nsd-3.2.8,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + nsd-3.2.8,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From ihsan at opencsw.org Sun May 1 16:44:13 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (Ihsan Dogan) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 16:44:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libunbound2, unbound, unbound_devel, (...) Message-ID: <201105011444.p41EiD57029918@login.bo.opencsw.org> * unbound: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.4.8,REV=2011.02.11 - to: 1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01 + libunbound2-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libunbound2-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + unbound-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + unbound-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + unbound_devel-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + unbound_devel-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + unbound_host-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + unbound_host-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Sun May 1 19:16:16 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 19:16:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub Message-ID: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Updated libffi, split off soname, created a stub to transition to the _dev package. There is nothing depending on CSWlibffi, so the _stub package might not be necessary, but I included it for completeness. * libffi: new package + libffi5-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libffi5-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libffi_dev-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libffi_dev-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libffi_stub-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From ihsan at opencsw.org Sun May 1 21:30:05 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (Ihsan Dogan) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 21:30:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libldns1, libldns_devel Message-ID: <201105011930.p41JU5Md012721@login.bo.opencsw.org> * libldns: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.6.8,REV=2011.02.01 - to: 1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01 + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-UNCOMMITTED.pkg.gz + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-UNCOMMITTED.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From ihsan at opencsw.org Sun May 1 21:39:09 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (Ihsan Dogan) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 21:39:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill Message-ID: <201105011939.p41Jd96n003349@login.bo.opencsw.org> * ldnsdrill: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.6.8,REV=2011.02.18 - to: 1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01 + ldnsdrill-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + ldnsdrill-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Mon May 2 00:08:46 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:08:46 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: <201105011930.p41JU5Md012721@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105011930.p41JU5Md012721@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: I thought I added a safeguard against uncommitted packages. Which version of submitpkg are you using? Maciej -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maciej.blizinski at gmail.com Mon May 2 00:07:28 2011 From: maciej.blizinski at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 23:07:28 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: <201105011930.p41JU5Md012721@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105011930.p41JU5Md012721@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Em 01/05/2011 20:31, "Ihsan Dogan" escreveu: > > * libldns: patchlevel upgrade > - from: 1.6.8,REV=2011.02.01 > - to: 1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01 > + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-UNCOMMITTED.pkg.gz I thought I added a safeguard against uncommitted packages. Which version of submitpkg are you using? Maciej -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ihsan at opencsw.org Mon May 2 11:25:43 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?B?xLBoc2FuwqBEb8SfYW4=?=) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 11:25:43 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: References: <201105011930.p41JU5Md012721@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <4DBE7897.2080208@opencsw.org> Am 02.05.2011 00:07, schrieb Maciej Blizi?ski: >> * libldns: patchlevel upgrade >> - from: 1.6.8,REV=2011.02.01 >> - to: 1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01 >> + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-UNCOMMITTED.pkg.gz > > I thought I added a safeguard against uncommitted packages. Which > version of submitpkg are you using? Oups. Phil, please ignore these packages. I'm building new ones. Ihsan -- ihsan at dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ From maciej at opencsw.org Mon May 2 13:31:25 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:31:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs sharutils Message-ID: <201105021131.p42BVP4E015934@login.bo.opencsw.org> Sharutils update, after a gnulib-related bug has been fixed. There is a file name conflict: uuencode and uudecode are provided by both sharutils and gmime. To avoid the conflict, names of these binaries have been changed to uuencode-sharutils and uudecode-sharutils. * sharutils: minor version upgrade - from: 4.6.3,REV=2010.02.25 - to: 4.11.1,REV=2011.05.02 + sharutils-4.11.1,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + sharutils-4.11.1,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From rupert at opencsw.org Tue May 3 07:41:39 2011 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 00:41:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mercurial Message-ID: <201105030541.p435fdYg021595@login.bo.opencsw.org> * mercurial: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.8.2,REV=2011.04.09 - to: 1.8.3,REV=2011.05.03 + mercurial-1.8.3,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + mercurial-1.8.3,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Tue May 3 09:07:03 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:07:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_textile Message-ID: <201105030707.p43773Gn005275@login.bo.opencsw.org> Textile module for Python. * py_textile: new package + py_textile-2.1.4,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 17:44:57 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:44:57 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nsd In-Reply-To: <201105011211.p41CBUG5019147@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105011211.p41CBUG5019147@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Ihsan Dogan wrote: > * nsd: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 3.2.7,REV=2011.01.30 > ?- ? to: 3.2.8,REV=2011.05.01 > ?+ nsd-3.2.8,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ nsd-3.2.8,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 17:46:15 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:46:15 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libunbound2, unbound, unbound_devel, (...) In-Reply-To: <201105011444.p41EiD57029918@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105011444.p41EiD57029918@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Ihsan Dogan wrote: > * unbound: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 1.4.8,REV=2011.02.11 > ?- ? to: 1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01 > ?+ libunbound2-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libunbound2-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ unbound-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ unbound-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ unbound_devel-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ unbound_devel-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ unbound_host-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ unbound_host-1.4.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 17:47:44 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:47:44 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: > Updated libffi, split off soname, created a stub to transition to the _dev > package. ?There is nothing depending on CSWlibffi, so the _stub package might > not be necessary, but I included it for completeness. how about just declaring libffi5 conflicts with CSWlibffi? that will handle cleanup and avoid having stub laying around. > > * libffi: new package > ?+ libffi5-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libffi5-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libffi_dev-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libffi_dev-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libffi_stub-3.0.9,REV=2011.04.29-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 17:48:26 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:48:26 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill In-Reply-To: <201105011939.p41Jd96n003349@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105011939.p41Jd96n003349@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: erm.. I presume this dependson the libldns new stuff. which is pending. So I'm ignoring this. On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Ihsan Dogan wrote: > * ldnsdrill: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 1.6.8,REV=2011.02.18 > ?- ? to: 1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01 > ?+ ldnsdrill-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ ldnsdrill-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.01-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 17:49:27 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:49:27 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs sharutils In-Reply-To: <201105021131.p42BVP4E015934@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105021131.p42BVP4E015934@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okie dokie. thanks. On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: > Sharutils update, after a gnulib-related bug has been fixed. > > There is a file name conflict: uuencode and uudecode are provided by both > sharutils and gmime. ?To avoid the conflict, names of these binaries have been > changed to uuencode-sharutils and uudecode-sharutils. > > * sharutils: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 4.6.3,REV=2010.02.25 > ?- ? to: 4.11.1,REV=2011.05.02 > ?+ sharutils-4.11.1,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ sharutils-4.11.1,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 17:50:28 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:50:28 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mercurial In-Reply-To: <201105030541.p435fdYg021595@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105030541.p435fdYg021595@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:41 PM, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * mercurial: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 1.8.2,REV=2011.04.09 > ?- ? to: 1.8.3,REV=2011.05.03 > ?+ mercurial-1.8.3,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ mercurial-1.8.3,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 17:50:56 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 08:50:56 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_textile In-Reply-To: <201105030707.p43773Gn005275@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105030707.p43773Gn005275@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: > Textile module for Python. > > * py_textile: new package > ?+ py_textile-2.1.4,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From maciej at opencsw.org Tue May 3 18:57:58 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 17:57:58 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/3 Philip Brown : > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: >> Updated libffi, split off soname, created a stub to transition to the _dev >> package. ?There is nothing depending on CSWlibffi, so the _stub package might >> not be necessary, but I included it for completeness. > > how about just declaring libffi5 conflicts with CSWlibffi? that will > handle cleanup and avoid having stub laying around. Dago, if you set: OBSOLETED_BY_CSWfoo = CSWbar ...shouldn't CSWfoo be declared incompatible with CSWbar? Maciej From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 19:08:18 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:08:18 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/3 Maciej Blizi?ski : > 2011/5/3 Philip Brown : >> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: >>> Updated libffi, split off soname, created a stub to transition to the _dev >>> package. ?There is nothing depending on CSWlibffi, so the _stub package might >>> not be necessary, but I included it for completeness. >> >> how about just declaring libffi5 conflicts with CSWlibffi? that will >> handle cleanup and avoid having stub laying around. > > Dago, if you set: > > OBSOLETED_BY_CSWfoo = CSWbar > > ...shouldn't CSWfoo be declared incompatible with CSWbar? > that gets in the way of use of stub packages, I think. From maciej at opencsw.org Tue May 3 19:43:20 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 18:43:20 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/3 Philip Brown : > that gets in the way of use of stub packages, I think. Is this libffi update a special case, or is it a later stage of a standard package transition process? In a typical case, we have: CSWfoo/foo ? CSWbar/bar (where foo is a library) After the first first stage of the transition, we have: CSWlibfoo1/libfoo1 ? CSWfoo/foo_stub ? CSWbar/bar CSWlibfoo-dev/libfoo_dev ? CSWfoo/foo_stub CSWfoo/foo_stub (no dependent packages) When CSWbar is rebuilt: CSWlibfoo1/libfoo1 ? CSWbar/bar CSWlibfoo-dev/libfoo_dev ? CSWfoo/foo_stub CSWfoo/foo_stub (no dependent packages) This is not the last step; we need to get rid of the _stub package. What is the complete list of steps to remove CSWfoo/foo_stub? Maciej From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 3 21:44:39 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:44:39 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/3 Maciej Blizi?ski : > 2011/5/3 Philip Brown : >> that gets in the way of use of stub packages, I think. > > Is this libffi update a special case, or is it a later stage of a > standard package transition process? I think its a separate, but "standard" transition case, that the GAR way does not yet handle. "standard", in that it's quite likely to come up again elsewhere.3 > ?In a typical case, we have: > I think you overstated that case. It may be better to write it up in the style that were are commonly using it for: libfoo1 is taking the place of plain libfoo, and CSWlibfoo is a required dependency. In contrast, the case we are dealing with now with libffi, is: libfoo1 is taking the place of plain libfoo, and CSWlibfoo is NOT a required dependency of anything. In the former, the "stub" hackery, is useful only because the older CSWpkg name is in use by other packages. In the latter, the stub is not useful; our standard "replace, by means of conflicts" mechanism does the job, and simpler is better. So, stub should not be used in that case. Please Note: It could also be argued that even in the former case, the stub hackery is only "useful", if there is a need to provide backward compatible "libfoo0" packages/libraries for those legacy other packages. If, in contrast, the other packages expecting CSWlibfoo, will function correctly with a silent in-place upgrade of CSWlibfoo->CSWlibfoo1, then the stub package is not really needed there either. In that case, CSWlibfoo1 can declare conflict on CSWlibfoo, and it will get removed; yet the other packages will continue to function. At such time that the other packages get upgraded, they will be created with a depend on CSWlibfoo1 The old CSWlibfoo will never be missed. This is why we didnt really need "stub" packages in the past. it was mostly the invention of splitting up libraries into their own package, and then retroactively attempting to supply "new" old-version library packages, that drove it. (that, and renaming nastiness. But again, if the dependency chain is shallow or non-existance, I dont think stubs are needed) Would be nice to avoid dumping *stub packages in our mirrors, when they are not needed, rather than always blindly generating them. From maciej at opencsw.org Tue May 3 22:02:28 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 22:02:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs lighttpd Message-ID: <201105032002.p43K2Sik022829@login.bo.opencsw.org> Updated lighttpd, and a takeover from drio. Changes: - Build ported to GAR - separate Solaris 9 and 10 builds due to a missing feature in Solaris 9 - IPv6 support on Solaris 10 - 64-bit build with isaexec - compiled with Sun Studio instead of gcc - fixed mod_compress - enabled and passing test suite - modules (.so files) moved to a subdirectory under /opt/csw/lib - .la files removed from the package - SMF integration driven by CAS - fixed the start/stop script - fixed php and perl paths in examples in lighttpd.conf - added examples to lighttpd.conf how to run fastcgi and IPv6 * lighttpd: revision upgrade - from: 2010.10.30 - to: 2011.04.17 + lighttpd-1.4.28,REV=2011.04.17-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + lighttpd-1.4.28,REV=2011.04.17-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + lighttpd-1.4.28,REV=2011.04.17-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + lighttpd-1.4.28,REV=2011.04.17-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Tue May 3 22:23:30 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 21:23:30 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/3 Philip Brown : >> ?In a typical case, we have: >> > > I think you overstated that case. It may be better to write it up in > the style that were are commonly using it for: > > libfoo1 is taking the place of plain libfoo, and CSWlibfoo is a > required dependency. Before we get further, I need to make sure that I understand what you mean. If you say that libfoo1 is taking place of libfoo, it isn't enough, because there are certain steps to be taken for that to be handled properly. If I understand correctly, we start with a single CSWlibfoo/libfoo package and at the end of the process we have 2 (and only 2) packages: CSWlibfoo1/libfoo1 + CSWlibfoo-dev/libfoo-dev. If you unpack the notion of "taking place", what exact steps does that involve until the final state? (let's assume that CSWlibfoo has both dependencies and dependent packages) Maciej From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 4 01:41:04 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 16:41:04 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/3 Maciej Blizi?ski : > 2011/5/3 Philip Brown : >>> ?In a typical case, we have: >>> >> >> I think you overstated that case. It may be better to write it up in >> the style that were are commonly using it for: >> >> libfoo1 is taking the place of plain libfoo, and CSWlibfoo is a >> required dependency. > > Before we get further, I need to make sure that I understand what you > mean. ?If you say that libfoo1 is taking place of libfoo, it isn't > enough, because there are certain steps to be taken for that to be > handled properly. ?If I understand correctly, we start with a single > CSWlibfoo/libfoo package and at the end of the process we have 2 (and > only 2) packages: CSWlibfoo1/libfoo1 + CSWlibfoo-dev/libfoo-dev. yes. > ?If > you unpack the notion of "taking place", what exact steps does that > involve until the final state? (let's assume that CSWlibfoo has both > dependencies and dependent packages) Okay, so to be explicit, I'm guesing you mean the case where there is no backwards compat lib being delivered. I did give an overiew, but I guess you want way-down-individual-step happenings. Ok. I will comment on dev at end. Initial on-system deployment state: CSWlibfoo (contains libfoo.so.1) CSWappfoo, depends on CSWlibfoo, libfoo.so.1 CSWappfoobar, depends on CSWlibfoo, libfoo.so.1 Initial user/sysadmin action: pkg-get upgrade (all) There are a couple of potential states in the catalog that could be in existance here: a) new replacement for libfoo only (CSWlibfoo1) b) new replacement for libfoo, AND a new upgrade for appfoo, or some other app that uses it. If there is no stub.. then I confess, for case (a), nothing will happen, unless the user explicitly asks for the new libfoo1. If they do, then CSWlibfoo1 is downloaded. It conflicts with CSWlibfoo, so that is auto-removed. Then new CSWlibfoo1 is installed, which provides the required runtime libfoo.so.1 that appfoo and appfoobar need. Old obsolete CSWlibfoo is no longer present on system Packages now installed on System: CSWlibfoo1 (contains libfoo.so.1) (old)CSWappfoo, depends on CSWlibfoo, libfoo.so.1 (old)CSWappfoobar, depends on CSWlibfoo, libfoo.so.1 For case b: new release of CSWappfoo is available, that has an updated dependancy pointing to CSWlibfoo1. installation of CSWappfoo pulls in the libfoo1. Things proceed as in case(a), above. Then newer CSWappfoo is installed. At this point, appfoo happily runs, and appfoobar also runs. Old obsolete CSWlibfoo is no longer present on system Packages now installed on System: CSWlibfoo1 (contains libfoo.so.1) (new)CSWappfoo, depends on CSWlibfoo1, libfoo.so.1 (old)CSWappfoobar, depends on CSWlibfoo, libfoo.so.1 Now to reply to your _dev case: yes, if the OpenCSW side change, is a library split, AND a split out of _dev files, then this is not so appropriate, in the sense that development files get removed from the user machine side, and are not automatically replaced. That makes a case for _stub being used. On the flip side, removing _dev related packages, does not really *break* anything(in that it does not actually stop apps from running, in the way that shared libraries do), so it isnt exactly what I would call a "priority 1 bug". In this case, I wouldnt complain if someone submitted a stub to pull in the upgraded dev automaticaly. But nor would I complain, if they chose NOT to do that. All that being said.. my comments are for the narrow area of, "we're just doing a shared lib split-off. nothing else is changing". the devel->dev renaming, is another beast. It's rather gross. only way to handle that in "automated" fashion that I am seeing, would seem to be to keep using the stubs. Which is the other reason I was against the renaming. it causes massive creation and use of over a hundred stub packages. Ugh. From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 4 12:58:43 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:58:43 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs berkeleydb3, berkeleydb3_dev, berkele(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201104242020.p3OKKPas027682@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <293A9D08-D891-462F-8B49-EACD931CF296@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 26.04.2011 um 02:36 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> >> + berkeleydb3_doc-3.3.11,REV=2011.04.24_rev=p2-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> .. >> + berkeleydb3_doc_stub-3.3.11,REV=2011.04.24_rev=p2-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > 1. is this stubbing, reaaaally neccessary for a "doc" package? This is the standard procedure for renaming. > 2. you didnt do the "new" one correctly. > > CSWbdb3-doc 1 9078 > NAME=berkeleydb3_doc - BerkeleyDB 3.3 documentation > > surely that should be > > CSWberkeleydb3-doc Umh, no. All other packages have the prefix CSWbdb3-* This having said, the idea was to just fix the bug I wrote about. The *big* rework on bdb will happen later: - sanitize naming - deep layout - single library split Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 4 13:01:10 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 13:01:10 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar In-Reply-To: References: <201104281349.p3SDnj1B019153@login.bo.opencsw.org> <81D0BB85-BB7F-4018-BF0C-AEE109ABAAA0@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 29.04.2011 um 17:21 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Am 28.04.2011 um 22:29 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> Isnt it fair to say, that a majority of people, are NOT going to >>> bother uncommenting stuff? >>> Isnt it also fair to say, that they will have no idea of looking at >>> /etc/opt/csw/clpbarrc >>> (rather than /etc/opt/csw/barrc. If they even realize there's an "rc" at all) >>> without going and reading docs? >> >> This is precisely documented in the manpage. > > You didnt really answer my questions. Let me simplify and repeat: > what percentage of bar users, do you think will actually WANT to > modify the rc file? I don't know. > And there is a related question: is the rc file most likely to be > host-specific, or site-wide specific? I don't know either. If in doubt, provide the file in the default location. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 4 14:58:50 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 14:58:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, gpgerr_stub, libgpg_error0(...) Message-ID: <201105041258.p44CwonJ018766@login.bo.opencsw.org> Package restructuring. * gpg: new package + gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + gpgerr_stub-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From ai at opencsw.org Wed May 4 18:03:11 2011 From: ai at opencsw.org (Andy Igoshin) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 20:03:11 +0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.1 Message-ID: <201105042003.11870.ai@opencsw.org> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Andy Igoshin Voronezh State University Phone: +7 473 2522406 Network Operation Center Fax: +7 473 2208820 Voronezh, Russia From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 4 19:06:47 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:06:47 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs lighttpd In-Reply-To: <201105032002.p43K2Sik022829@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105032002.p43K2Sik022829@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: > Updated lighttpd, and a takeover from drio. ?Changes: > > - Build ported to GAR > - separate Solaris 9 and 10 builds due to a missing feature in Solaris 9 > - IPv6 support on Solaris 10 > - 64-bit build with isaexec Waaait a minute... everything else sounds good, but: *WHY* exactly, do we need a 64bit binary? that's a waste of space. webservers usually only need 64bit *filesystem APIs*. Having it use 64bit memory space, is a useless "feature", as far as I'm aware. From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 4 19:14:09 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:14:09 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs berkeleydb3, berkeleydb3_dev, berkele(...) In-Reply-To: <293A9D08-D891-462F-8B49-EACD931CF296@opencsw.org> References: <201104242020.p3OKKPas027682@login.bo.opencsw.org> <293A9D08-D891-462F-8B49-EACD931CF296@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 26.04.2011 um 02:36 schrieb Philip Brown: >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> >>> ?+ berkeleydb3_doc-3.3.11,REV=2011.04.24_rev=p2-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz >>> >>> .. >>> ?+ berkeleydb3_doc_stub-3.3.11,REV=2011.04.24_rev=p2-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> 1. is this stubbing, reaaaally neccessary for a "doc" package? > > This is the standard procedure for renaming. This sucks. we're going waaay overboard on stub package creation here. > >> 2. you didnt do the "new" one correctly. >> >> CSWbdb3-doc 1 9078 >> NAME=berkeleydb3_doc - BerkeleyDB 3.3 documentation >> >> surely that should be >> >> CSWberkeleydb3-doc > > Umh, no. All other packages have the prefix CSWbdb3-* but if you're going through all this trouble to "rename" everything, then shouldnt you fix the naming here also? We're supposed to have congruence between catalog name and PKG name now arent we? > This having said, the idea was to just fix the bug I wrote about. if you're "just fixing the bug", then "just fix the bug". If you're renaming and stubbing, then you're not "just fixing the bug". consistency please. From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 4 19:19:05 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:19:05 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar In-Reply-To: <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> References: <201104281349.p3SDnj1B019153@login.bo.opencsw.org> <81D0BB85-BB7F-4018-BF0C-AEE109ABAAA0@opencsw.org> <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 29.04.2011 um 17:21 schrieb Philip Brown: > >> You didnt really answer my questions. Let me simplify and repeat: >> what percentage of bar users, do you think will actually WANT to >> modify the rc file? > > I don't know. > >> And there is a related question: is the rc file most likely to be >> host-specific, or site-wide specific? > > I don't know either. > > If in doubt, provide the file in the default location. > seems like you did not bother to actually examine the file, and are just packaging "on autopilot". This is not a good thing. I have taken the extra time and hassle, to look at the file myself. Its contents are trivial. purely cosmetic. example: # twiddle-background: normal # twiddle-bold: no I would like to ask you revert to the prior maintainer's wisdom, remove it from /etc/opt/csw and put it in /opt/csw/share/doc/bar as merely an example Clutter in /etc is a bug, not a feature. From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 4 19:48:22 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 19:48:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) Message-ID: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Version bump, and name santization for modern standards. Thanks -Ben * git: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.7.3.2,REV=2010.11.28 - to: 1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03 + git-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + git-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + git_completion-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_cvs-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_doc-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_emacs-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_gui-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_svn-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitk-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz * various packages: new package + git_dev-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + git_dev-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + gitcompletion_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitcvs_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitdevel_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitdoc_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitemacs_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitgui_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitsvn_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From gadavis at opencsw.org Wed May 4 20:07:17 2011 From: gadavis at opencsw.org (Geoff Davis) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 11:07:17 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs lighttpd In-Reply-To: References: <201105032002.p43K2Sik022829@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Here's a good reason why - binary API extensions. I have a third-party software package that is 64-bit only that need to link into various language bindings such as PHP - and these need to also hook into the web server. I don't know if we are building extensions for lighttpd or not, but this is definitely an issue for Apache. On May 4, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Philip Brown wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: >> Updated lighttpd, and a takeover from drio. Changes: >> >> - Build ported to GAR >> - separate Solaris 9 and 10 builds due to a missing feature in Solaris 9 >> - IPv6 support on Solaris 10 >> - 64-bit build with isaexec > > Waaait a minute... > everything else sounds good, but: > *WHY* exactly, do we need a 64bit binary? that's a waste of space. > webservers usually only need 64bit *filesystem APIs*. > Having it use 64bit memory space, is a useless "feature", as far as I'm aware. > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 4 20:10:09 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 11:10:09 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs lighttpd In-Reply-To: References: <201105032002.p43K2Sik022829@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Geoff Davis wrote: > Here's a good reason why - binary API extensions. I have a third-party software package that is 64-bit only that need to link into various language bindings such as PHP - and these need to also hook into the web server. > > I don't know if we are building extensions for lighttpd or not, but this is definitely an issue for Apache. > > Wow.. that's just... creepy :) okay, that makes a case for "provide 64bit binaries, for strange odd cases". but it does not justify "auto-choose the 64bit version via isaexec". and for larger packages like apache, it might raise the question of whether the 64bit suite belongs in a secondary, auxiliary package, rather than in the main one. For lighttpd though, its small enough that I think its okay to provide both in the main package. From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 4 21:21:52 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 21:21:52 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs berkeleydb3, berkeleydb3_dev, berkele(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201104242020.p3OKKPas027682@login.bo.opencsw.org> <293A9D08-D891-462F-8B49-EACD931CF296@opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 04.05.2011 um 19:14 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> 2. you didnt do the "new" one correctly. >>> >>> CSWbdb3-doc 1 9078 >>> NAME=berkeleydb3_doc - BerkeleyDB 3.3 documentation >>> >>> surely that should be >>> >>> CSWberkeleydb3-doc >> >> Umh, no. All other packages have the prefix CSWbdb3-* > > but if you're going through all this trouble to "rename" everything, > then shouldnt you fix the naming here also? We're supposed to have > congruence between catalog name and PKG name now arent we? > >> This having said, the idea was to just fix the bug I wrote about. > > if you're "just fixing the bug", then "just fix the bug". > > If you're renaming and stubbing, then you're not "just fixing the bug". > consistency please. Yeah. Right. Then just take then what I have submitted two month ago. Am 07.03.2011 um 22:55 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> Am 07.03.2011 um 21:28 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> Errr.... now I'm confused. >>> >>> Didnt we just go through a bunch of hassle to "standardize" suffixes >>> for devel -> dev? >>> but you're submitting _devel ? >> >> I have not changed a thing apart from the dependency to CSWtcl as reported >> in #4708. One of the faults of the past was to change too many things at >> the same time. A general overhault will be done for release "dublin". > > Gaaaahhhh.... > sorry, it doesnt work that way. > You, and others just voted for, > "Our new, OFFICIAL, standard is _dev." > > not "_dev or _devel". > > _dev. > Only. > > Official Standard. > > So just as I couldnt accept _dev before... now I can no longer accept _devel. From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 4 22:03:14 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 13:03:14 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs berkeleydb3, berkeleydb3_dev, berkele(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201104242020.p3OKKPas027682@login.bo.opencsw.org> <293A9D08-D891-462F-8B49-EACD931CF296@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > >> >> if you're "just fixing the bug", then "just fix the bug". >> >> If you're renaming and stubbing, then you're not "just fixing the bug". >> consistency please. > > Yeah. Right. Then just take then what I have submitted two month ago. > Do you have an archived copy? If so please copy it over, and I'll take another look at it. From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 5 02:57:33 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 17:57:33 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: FYI, Maciej, in case it wasnt clear to you: I wasnt refusing to release the packages. I merely raised a potential alternative. Quoting my original message in this thread: > how about just declaring libffi5 conflicts with CSWlibffi? that will > handle cleanup and avoid having stub laying around. My continuation of the thread, has been in response to your questions. And I've even said in my prior email explicitly, > In this case, I wouldnt complain if someone submitted a stub to pull > in the upgraded dev automatically. But nor would I complain, if they > chose NOT to do that. So, my intent was to make you aware that an alternative method exists. I'm not forcing you to follow it. From maciej at opencsw.org Thu May 5 18:13:34 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:13:34 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libffi5, libffi_dev, libffi_stub In-Reply-To: References: <201105011716.p41HGG80002655@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/5 Philip Brown : > FYI, Maciej, in case it wasnt clear to you: > > I wasnt refusing to release the packages. I merely raised a potential > alternative. Sure. I need a bit of quiet time to sit down and read your email carefully before responding. Maciej From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 5 20:49:14 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 11:49:14 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, gpgerr_stub, libgpg_error0(...) In-Reply-To: <201105041258.p44CwonJ018766@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105041258.p44CwonJ018766@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Package restructuring. > > * gpg: new package > ?+ gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gpgerr_stub-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz stub naming does not match original: libgpg_error > ?+ libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 5 20:52:47 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 11:52:47 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.1 In-Reply-To: <201105042003.11870.ai@opencsw.org> References: <201105042003.11870.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > i took a look at the files you have under /var. A comment, and an "error" for you: comment: stuff like 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html 0644 root bin 383 32739 1304428323 shouldnt static files, be shipped somewhere other than /var? An "error": 1 d none /var/run/nginx 0755 root bin it doesnt make sense to have a "permanent" catalog entry, under an in-memory filesystem that is transient. it will flag error when pkgchk is called, and it doesnt exist any more. From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 6 02:58:32 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:58:32 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > > ?+ gitcompletion_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gitcvs_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz >... Please match the stubs name, to the original catalog names. This has come up about 6 times in this last month, if not more :( > ?+ gitdevel_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gitdoc_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gitemacs_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gitgui_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gitsvn_stub-1.7.5,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From bwalton at opencsw.org Fri May 6 04:52:28 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 22:52:28 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu May 05 20:58:32 -0400 2011: > Please match the stubs name, to the original catalog names. Does the internal catalog name need to match to make your scripts happy or just the filename? If the latter, they can simply be renamed, no? If the former, I'd infer that you're unpacking the package to retrieve that value and could do the lookup based on pkgname instead...? Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 6 07:15:35 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:15:35 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu May 05 20:58:32 -0400 2011: > >> Please match the stubs name, to the original catalog names. > > Does the internal catalog name need to match to make your scripts > happy or just the filename? ?If the latter, they can simply be > renamed, no? filename and NAME field need to match, or they will fail checks. Not that there's much to check in these cases, but even so. you and dagobert have been now churning out a pile of these misnamed stubs (okay, mostly Dagobert :). I let a few go by, as a good will gesture, along with a warning, "hey, this needs to be fixed for next set of packages". they havent been fixed for next set. so I'm not going to accept them misnamed any more. From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 6 09:16:16 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:16:16 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.1 In-Reply-To: References: <201105042003.11870.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <99897476-B379-4086-B4CE-83602E2C8032@opencsw.org> Hi, Am 05.05.2011 um 20:52 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > i took a look at the files you have under /var. > > A comment, and an "error" for you: > > comment: stuff like > 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html 0644 root bin 383 32739 1304428323 AFAIK this is a modifyable template, maybe PRESERVECONF on these would be good? Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 6 09:19:00 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:19:00 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <88B2A569-6A58-4A2E-B459-26556516EF45@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 06.05.2011 um 07:15 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Ben Walton wrote: >> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu May 05 20:58:32 -0400 2011: >> >>> Please match the stubs name, to the original catalog names. >> >> Does the internal catalog name need to match to make your scripts >> happy or just the filename? If the latter, they can simply be >> renamed, no? > > filename and NAME field need to match, or they will fail checks. Not > that there's much to check in these cases, but even so. > > you and dagobert have been now churning out a pile of these misnamed > stubs (okay, mostly Dagobert :). > I let a few go by, as a good will gesture, along with a warning, "hey, > this needs to be fixed for next set of packages". > they havent been fixed for next set. > so I'm not going to accept them misnamed any more. I still haven't understood why this stub naming is so important. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 6 09:36:40 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:36:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) Message-ID: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> Now with adjusted stub name * gpg_error: new package + gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Fri May 6 10:49:49 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:49:49 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: We could modify checkpkg so that it tests that the catalogname corresponding to CSWfoo can be either foo or foo_stub. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 6 10:52:27 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 10:52:27 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> Hi Maciej, Am 06.05.2011 um 10:49 schrieb Maciej Blizi?ski: > We could modify checkpkg so that it tests that the catalogname corresponding to CSWfoo can be either foo or foo_stub. That is already the default in GAR. The problem is when a package is called CSWfoobar and has old catalog name foo_bar and should result in foo_bar_stub catalogname instead of foobar_stub. You can only check this by reverselookup of the catalogname with the packagename. Best regards -- Dago From maciej at opencsw.org Fri May 6 13:19:45 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:19:45 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: Em 06/05/2011 09:52, "Dagobert Michelsen" escreveu: > > Hi Maciej, > > Am 06.05.2011 um 10:49 schrieb Maciej Blizi?ski: > > We could modify checkpkg so that it tests that the catalogname corresponding to CSWfoo can be either foo or foo_stub. > > That is already the default in GAR. The problem is when a package > is called CSWfoobar and has old catalog name foo_bar and should result > in foo_bar_stub catalogname instead of foobar_stub. You can only > check this by reverselookup of the catalogname with the packagename. How about the following plan: For stub packages, GAR would do a REST query against the buildfarm database and embed the previous package's catalogname in a custom field in pkginfo. That in turn would be inspected by checkpkg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ai at opencsw.org Fri May 6 13:47:07 2011 From: ai at opencsw.org (Andy Igoshin) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 15:47:07 +0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.1 Message-ID: <201105061547.07867.ai@opencsw.org> Hi! On 6 of May 2011 11:16:16 Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Am 05.05.2011 um 20:52 schrieb Philip Brown: > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > > > i took a look at the files you have under /var. > > > > A comment, and an "error" for you: > > > > comment: stuff like > > 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html 0644 root bin 383 32739 > > 1304428323 > > AFAIK this is a modifyable template, maybe PRESERVECONF on these would be > good? ok, done. -- Andy Igoshin Voronezh State University Phone: +7 473 2522406 Network Operation Center Fax: +7 473 2208820 Voronezh, Russia From bwalton at opencsw.org Fri May 6 15:05:20 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:05:20 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1304687043-sup-8568@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Maciej Blizi?ski's message of Fri May 06 07:19:45 -0400 2011: Hi Maciej, > How about the following plan: > > For stub packages, GAR would do a REST query against the buildfarm database > and embed the previous package's catalogname in a custom field in pkginfo. > That in turn would be inspected by checkpkg. I'm not sure that modifying GAR is the answer here. This is a problem in the registration scripts, not the packages themselves. Jumping through hoops in gar/checkpkg seems like the wrong place to address this. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Fri May 6 15:11:58 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:11:58 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: <88B2A569-6A58-4A2E-B459-26556516EF45@opencsw.org> References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <88B2A569-6A58-4A2E-B459-26556516EF45@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1304687441-sup-2452@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Dagobert Michelsen's message of Fri May 06 03:19:00 -0400 2011: > I still haven't understood why this stub naming is so important. The scripts are doing taking the catalog name based on filename and doing a lookup for that value passed to s/_stub// in the db. The mantis registrations are then twiddled, etc. -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 6 15:39:53 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 06:39:53 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: 2011/5/6 Maciej Blizi?ski : > >> That is already the default in GAR. The problem is when a package >> is called CSWfoobar and has old catalog name foo_bar and should result >> in foo_bar_stub catalogname instead of foobar_stub. You can only >> check this by reverselookup of the catalogname with the packagename. > > How about the following plan: > > For stub packages, GAR would do a REST query against the buildfarm database > and embed the previous package's catalogname in a custom field in pkginfo. > That in turn would be inspected by checkpkg. > Can you not allow override of catalog name directly in the gar recipe? From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 6 15:47:56 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 15:47:56 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <41A95F08-A67D-41AC-BA7B-097BA61922C9@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 06.05.2011 um 15:39 schrieb Philip Brown: > 2011/5/6 Maciej Blizi?ski : >> >>> That is already the default in GAR. The problem is when a package >>> is called CSWfoobar and has old catalog name foo_bar and should result >>> in foo_bar_stub catalogname instead of foobar_stub. You can only >>> check this by reverselookup of the catalogname with the packagename. >> >> How about the following plan: >> >> For stub packages, GAR would do a REST query against the buildfarm database >> and embed the previous package's catalogname in a custom field in pkginfo. >> That in turn would be inspected by checkpkg. > > Can you not allow override of catalog name directly in the gar recipe? You can override it directly in the GAR recipe. But you must recognize that the catalog name of the obsoleted package is different from the infered name of the package. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 6 15:51:53 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 15:51:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gifsicle Message-ID: <201105061351.p46Dprla027499@login.bo.opencsw.org> * gifsicle: minor version upgrade - from: 1.59,REV=2010.03.19 - to: 1.62,REV=2011.05.06 + gifsicle-1.62,REV=2011.05.06-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gifsicle-1.62,REV=2011.05.06-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 6 16:13:54 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 07:13:54 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: <41A95F08-A67D-41AC-BA7B-097BA61922C9@opencsw.org> References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> <41A95F08-A67D-41AC-BA7B-097BA61922C9@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 06.05.2011 um 15:39 schrieb Philip Brown: >> >>> For stub packages, GAR would do a REST query against the buildfarm database >>> and embed the previous package's catalogname in a custom field in pkginfo. >>> That in turn would be inspected by checkpkg. >> >> Can you not allow override of catalog name directly in the gar recipe? > > You can override it directly in the GAR recipe. But you must recognize > that the catalog name of the obsoleted package is different from the > infered name of the package. > for "inherited gar" recipies.. .wouldnt the catalog name already be set specifically in the old recipe? in that case, the maintainer would have to be completely ignoring the old recipie and creating one from scratch, to not be aware of it. That's not usually a good methodology. From bwalton at opencsw.org Fri May 6 16:24:37 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 10:24:37 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> <41A95F08-A67D-41AC-BA7B-097BA61922C9@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1304691765-sup-331@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri May 06 10:13:54 -0400 2011: > for "inherited gar" recipies.. .wouldnt the catalog name already be > set specifically in the old recipe? Or we could just have the script fixed. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 6 18:13:49 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:13:49 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.1 In-Reply-To: <201105061547.07867.ai@opencsw.org> References: <201105061547.07867.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > > On 6 of May 2011 11:16:16 Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Am 05.05.2011 um 20:52 schrieb Philip Brown: >> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> > >> > i took a look at the files you have under /var. >> > >> > A comment, and an "error" for you: >> > >> > comment: stuff like >> > 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html 0644 root bin 383 32739 >> > 1304428323 >> >> AFAIK this is a modifyable template, maybe PRESERVECONF on these would be >> good? > > ok, done. Normally, I would suggest using cptemplates as better still. But given that it has an unavoidable presence otherwise in /var/opt/csw, I wont argue the point. dont see new packages in newpkgs yet though. From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 6 18:14:52 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:14:52 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gifsicle In-Reply-To: <201105061351.p46Dprla027499@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105061351.p46Dprla027499@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * gifsicle: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.59,REV=2010.03.19 > ?- ? to: 1.62,REV=2011.05.06 > ?+ gifsicle-1.62,REV=2011.05.06-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gifsicle-1.62,REV=2011.05.06-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 6 19:37:13 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 10:37:13 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: <1304691765-sup-331@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> <41A95F08-A67D-41AC-BA7B-097BA61922C9@opencsw.org> <1304691765-sup-331@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri May 06 10:13:54 -0400 2011: > >> for "inherited gar" recipies.. .wouldnt the catalog name already be >> set specifically in the old recipe? > > Or we could just have the script fixed. it's your opinion that the registration process needs to be "fixed". I have a different opinion; that the current behaviour of gar and stubs is what is broken, and needing fixing. One thing to consider, is the state of "all packages" archives. Their purpose is to allow people to go and *manually* download files. In that situation, it is clearer to the manual chooser, if the filenames of "stub" files, closely match files that have been obsoleted. When they see alignment of soft_ware-1.2.3 soft_ware_stub-1.2.3 it makes it clearer that "software-xxxx" has now been stubbed out. Also consider where someone is doing a search for some package they remember. If they do "pkg-get -D soft_ware", and it has been removed via stub... soft_ware_stub will show up in the search, giving them a hint about what has happened. "software_stub" will NOT show up in the search, however. From bonivart at opencsw.org Fri May 6 20:32:38 2011 From: bonivart at opencsw.org (Peter Bonivart) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 20:32:38 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, libgpg_error0, libgpg_erro(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105060736.p467aeHi007512@login.bo.opencsw.org> <40ACBDCA-5BB6-458E-B1F3-B24E0CD2D2A7@opencsw.org> <41A95F08-A67D-41AC-BA7B-097BA61922C9@opencsw.org> <1304691765-sup-331@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Philip Brown wrote: > Also consider where someone is doing a search for some package they remember. > > If they do ? "pkg-get -D soft_ware", and it has been removed via stub... > soft_ware_stub will show up in the search, giving them a hint about > what has happened. > > "software_stub" will NOT show up in the search, however. If they use pkgutil its fuzzy matching will find this however: # pkgutil -a ximian_connector common package catalog size ximian_connector CSWximian-connector 2.2.2,REV=2005.04.13 1.2 MB # pkgutil -a ximianconnector common package catalog size No exact matches found, doing fuzzy matching for first argument (ximianconnector) ... Suggestions: ximian_connector CSWximian-connector # :) From ihsan at opencsw.org Sun May 8 15:08:06 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (Ihsan Dogan) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 15:08:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel Message-ID: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> * ldnsdrill: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.6.8,REV=2011.02.18 - to: 1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08 + ldnsdrill-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + ldnsdrill-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz * libldns: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.6.8,REV=2011.02.01 - to: 1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08 + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libldns1-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From ai at opencsw.org Sun May 8 15:21:53 2011 From: ai at opencsw.org (Andy Igoshin) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 17:21:53 +0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.1 In-Reply-To: References: <201105061547.07867.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <201105081721.54105.ai@opencsw.org> On 6 of May 2011 20:13:49 Philip Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > > On 6 of May 2011 11:16:16 Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > >> Am 05.05.2011 um 20:52 schrieb Philip Brown: > >> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > >> >> nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > >> > > >> > i took a look at the files you have under /var. > >> > > >> > A comment, and an "error" for you: > >> > > >> > comment: stuff like > >> > 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html 0644 root bin 383 32739 > >> > 1304428323 > >> > >> AFAIK this is a modifyable template, maybe PRESERVECONF on these would > >> be good? > > > > ok, done. > > Normally, I would suggest using cptemplates as better still. > But given that it has an unavoidable presence otherwise in > /var/opt/csw, I wont argue the point. > > > dont see new packages in newpkgs yet though. i suppose these changes can wait until version 1.0.2 is released. -- Andy Igoshin Voronezh State University Phone: +7 473 2522406 Network Operation Center Fax: +7 473 2208820 Voronezh, Russia From ai at opencsw.org Sun May 8 15:28:56 2011 From: ai at opencsw.org (Andy Igoshin) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 17:28:56 +0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.1 In-Reply-To: References: <201105042003.11870.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <201105081728.56392.ai@opencsw.org> On 5 of May 2011 22:52:47 Philip Brown wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > nginx-1.0.1,REV=2011.05.03-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > i took a look at the files you have under /var. > > A comment, and an "error" for you: > > comment: stuff like > 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html 0644 root bin 383 32739 > 1304428323 > > shouldnt static files, be shipped somewhere other than /var? > > An "error": > 1 d none /var/run/nginx 0755 root bin > > > it doesnt make sense to have a "permanent" catalog entry, under an > in-memory filesystem that is transient. it will flag error when pkgchk > is called, and it doesnt exist any more. fixed. -- Andy Igoshin Voronezh State University Phone: +7 473 2522406 Network Operation Center Fax: +7 473 2208820 Voronezh, Russia From bwalton at opencsw.org Sun May 8 20:56:38 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 20:56:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils Message-ID: <201105081856.p48Iuctx023261@login.bo.opencsw.org> Making way for CSWcheckpkg package. Adding alternatives support to bin/checkpkg. Thanks -Ben * cswutils: revision upgrade - from: 2011.04.13 - to: 2011.05.08 + cswutils-1.16,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Mon May 9 11:59:20 2011 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:59:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cups_dev, cups_devel_stub, cupsdev_stub Message-ID: <201105090959.p499xK83027485@login.bo.opencsw.org> Sorting out the development package names for cups. Fixes #4667 https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=4667 * various packages: new package + cups_dev-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + cups_dev-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + cups_devel_stub-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + cupsdev_stub-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 9 18:26:27 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:26:27 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cups_dev, cups_devel_stub, cupsdev_stub In-Reply-To: <201105090959.p499xK83027485@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105090959.p499xK83027485@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched. what do you want to do about the libffi stuff? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: > Sorting out the development package names for cups. > > Fixes #4667 > > https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=4667 > > * various packages: new package > ?+ cups_dev-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ cups_dev-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ cups_devel_stub-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ cupsdev_stub-1.4.5,REV=2011.05.09-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 9 18:27:24 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:27:24 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils In-Reply-To: <201105081856.p48Iuctx023261@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105081856.p48Iuctx023261@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Making way for CSWcheckpkg package. ?Adding alternatives support to > bin/checkpkg. > > Thanks > -Ben > > * cswutils: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2011.04.13 > ?- ? to: 2011.05.08 > ?+ cswutils-1.16,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 9 18:28:10 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:28:10 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Ihsan Dogan wrote: > ?+ libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz ` mis name From ihsan at opencsw.org Wed May 11 12:02:12 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?B?xLBoc2FuIERvxJ9hbg==?=) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:02:12 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: References: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> On 05/ 9/11 06:28 PM, Philip Brown wrote: >> + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ` > > mis name What exactly is not right? Ihsan -- ihsan at dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 11 12:26:38 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:26:38 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> References: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <6EC050D1-ABF1-4BC3-961E-5C7ED86D64D9@opencsw.org> Hi Ihsan, Am 11.05.2011 um 12:02 schrieb ?hsan Do?an: > On 05/ 9/11 06:28 PM, Philip Brown wrote: >>> + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> ` >> mis name > > What exactly is not right? The new naming policy is CSWfoo-dev for development packages and a catalog name of foo_dev. If CSWfoodevel with catalogname foo_devel has been released in the past there should be an obsoletion with catalogname foo_devel_stub. Best regards -- Dago From ai at opencsw.org Wed May 11 12:29:07 2011 From: ai at opencsw.org (Andy Igoshin) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:29:07 +0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.2 Message-ID: <201105111429.07163.ai@opencsw.org> nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Andy Igoshin Voronezh State University Phone: +7 473 2522406 Network Operation Center Fax: +7 473 2208820 Voronezh, Russia From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 11 12:58:37 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 06:58:37 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> References: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Ihsan, It should be -dev, not devel. Thanks -Ben "?hsan Do?an" wrote: On 05/ 9/11 06:28 PM, Philip Brown wrote: >> + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ` > > mis name What exactly is not right? Ihsan -- ihsan at dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/_____________________________________________ pkgsubmissions mailing list pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 11 21:31:27 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:31:27 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: <6EC050D1-ABF1-4BC3-961E-5C7ED86D64D9@opencsw.org> References: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> <6EC050D1-ABF1-4BC3-961E-5C7ED86D64D9@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > H >> What exactly is not right? > > The new naming policy is CSWfoo-dev for development packages and > a catalog name of foo_dev. yes > If CSWfoodevel with catalogname foo_devel > has been released in the past there should be an obsoletion with > catalogname foo_devel_stub. that bit is not, strictly speaking, "policy", however. From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 11 21:34:59 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:34:59 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: References: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> <6EC050D1-ABF1-4BC3-961E-5C7ED86D64D9@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305142410-sup-7974@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Wed May 11 15:31:27 -0400 2011: > > If CSWfoodevel with catalogname foo_devel > > has been released in the past there should be an obsoletion with > > catalogname foo_devel_stub. > > that bit is not, strictly speaking, "policy", however. True, but you wouldn't want to see a box have old header files kicking around either. Using obsoletes here makes a great deal of sense as it will then be picked up by pkgutil -Uu (or -UC). Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 12 19:06:06 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:06:06 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.2 In-Reply-To: <201105111429.07163.ai@opencsw.org> References: <201105111429.07163.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > Errr.. now there are BOTH of 1 f cswpreserveconf /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html.CSW 0644 root bin 383 32739 1305038341 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/index.html 0644 root bin 151 12793 1305037638 ? This seems like a packaging bug. From bwalton at opencsw.org Thu May 12 22:11:31 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) Message-ID: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> This must be all or nothing. Don't push bacula unless you also push cas_usergroup. Thanks -Ben * bacula: new package + bacula_client_stub-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_common-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_common-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_console-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_console-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_director-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_director-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_doc-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_fd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_fd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_gnome_stub-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_sd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_sd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_tray_monitor-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_tray_monitor-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz * bacula: major version upgrade - from: 2.2.8,REV=2008.01.28 - to: 5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02 + bacula-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_client-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz * cas_usergroup: minor version upgrade - from: 1.42,REV=2010.11.26 - to: 1.44,REV=2011.05.02 + cas_usergroup-1.44,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 12 22:36:11 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:36:11 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > This must be all or nothing. ?Don't push bacula unless you also > push cas_usergroup. > thanks for the note. however, why not push cas_usergroup by itself, first? Since you put it in here, and request "all or nothing", i cant release it now, even though I see nothing wrong with it. anyway, on to bacula. Unfortunately, the issues are in the stub package, as usual. But not about naming, at least :) Knowing a little about bacula, I'm not sure that your stub grouping/dependencies are what is best for the user. BTW, I completely agree with splitting out the demons into their own packages. its just the transitions that seem a bit off to me at the moment. old: bacula_client == bconsole, gconsole, bacula-fd, and assorted bacular tools bacula_gnome == bgnome-console, bregex, bwild new: bacula_client (stub) == (rename, plus pulls in bacula-fd)?? bacula_gnome(stub) == (pulls in bacula_client), does nothing else, I think Why have a stub for bacula_gnome at all? You describe it as " Obsolete bacula gnome console " Why not just remove from catalog? as far as bacula_client_stub.. .seems like it needs to also pull in bacula_console, to consistently upgrade/replace the older instance of the bacula_client package? > Thanks > -Ben > > * bacula: new package > ?+ bacula_client_stub-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_common-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_common-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_console-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_console-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_director-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_director-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_doc-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_fd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_fd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_gnome_stub-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_sd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_sd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_tray_monitor-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_tray_monitor-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > * bacula: major version upgrade > ?- from: 2.2.8,REV=2008.01.28 > ?- ? to: 5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02 > ?+ bacula-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bacula_client-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > * cas_usergroup: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.42,REV=2010.11.26 > ?- ? to: 1.44,REV=2011.05.02 > ?+ cas_usergroup-1.44,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 13 11:21:26 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:21:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libntlm0, libntlm_dev, libntlm_stub Message-ID: <201105130921.p4D9LQ6B020958@login.bo.opencsw.org> Packages split * libntlm: new package + libntlm0-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libntlm0-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libntlm_dev-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libntlm_dev-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libntlm_stub-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 13 13:15:17 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:15:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libspf2_2, libspf2_dev, libspf2_stub, (...) Message-ID: <201105131115.p4DBFH06026001@login.bo.opencsw.org> Split packages * libspf2: new package + libspf2_2-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libspf2_2-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libspf2_dev-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libspf2_dev-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libspf2_stub-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libspf2_utils-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libspf2_utils-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From ai at opencsw.org Fri May 13 13:21:53 2011 From: ai at opencsw.org (Andy Igoshin) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:21:53 +0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.2 In-Reply-To: References: <201105111429.07163.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <201105131521.53450.ai@opencsw.org> On 12 of May 2011 21:06:06 Philip Brown wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.10-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > Errr.. now there are BOTH of > > 1 f cswpreserveconf /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/50x.html.CSW 0644 root bin > 383 32739 1305038341 > 1 f none /var/opt/csw/nginx/html/index.html 0644 root bin 151 12793 > 1305037638 > > > ? > This seems like a packaging bug. fixed. nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Andy Igoshin Voronezh State University Phone: +7 473 2522406 Network Operation Center Fax: +7 473 2208820 Voronezh, Russia From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 13 13:22:31 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:22:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libpakchois0, libpakchois_dev, pakcho(...) Message-ID: <201105131122.p4DBMVJl004552@login.bo.opencsw.org> Package split. * pakchois: new package + libpakchois0-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libpakchois0-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libpakchois_dev-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libpakchois_dev-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pakchois_stub-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 13 13:57:23 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:57:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libwavpack1, libwavpack_dev, wavpack Message-ID: <201105131157.p4DBvN40016585@login.bo.opencsw.org> Split packages * libwavpack: new package + libwavpack1-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libwavpack1-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libwavpack_dev-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libwavpack_dev-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz * wavpack: revision upgrade - from: 2010.01.06 - to: 2011.05.13 + wavpack-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + wavpack-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 13 14:47:07 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:47:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libpth20, libpth_dev, pth_stub Message-ID: <201105131247.p4DCl7be002716@login.bo.opencsw.org> Split packages * pth: new package + libpth20-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libpth20-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libpth_dev-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libpth_dev-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pth_stub-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bwalton at opencsw.org Fri May 13 20:34:47 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:34:47 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu May 12 16:36:11 -0400 2011: > old: > bacula_client == bconsole, gconsole, bacula-fd, and assorted bacular tools > bacula_gnome == bgnome-console, bregex, bwild > > new: > bacula_client (stub) == (rename, plus pulls in bacula-fd)?? > bacula_gnome(stub) == (pulls in bacula_client), does nothing else, I think > > Why have a stub for bacula_gnome at all? > You describe it as " Obsolete bacula gnome console " > Why not just remove from catalog? A fair critique, but I prefer the obsoletes mechanism to the I dep mechanism. > as far as bacula_client_stub.. .seems like it needs to also pull in > bacula_console, to consistently upgrade/replace the older instance of > the bacula_client package? I agree with what you're saying, but I want these things split entirely and am only leaving client package as a convenience. If I reversed what was included now vs then, I'd agree...people wouldn't be happy. As it stands, they'll find bconsole missing and then look for the new tool and pull it in. (Or more commonly, I expect they won't miss it since it was only there to get bacula-fd.) Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Fri May 13 21:11:07 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:11:07 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305313802-sup-9116@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu May 12 16:36:11 -0400 2011: > Why have a stub for bacula_gnome at all? > You describe it as " Obsolete bacula gnome console " > Why not just remove from catalog? I think this should actually pull in the tray-monitor subpackage though...Doesn't look like it is. I'll fix that. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Fri May 13 21:23:52 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:23:52 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305314461-sup-3816@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu May 12 16:36:11 -0400 2011: > old: > bacula_client == bconsole, gconsole, bacula-fd, and assorted bacular tools > bacula_gnome == bgnome-console, bregex, bwild > > new: > bacula_client (stub) == (rename, plus pulls in bacula-fd)?? > bacula_gnome(stub) == (pulls in bacula_client), does nothing else, I think > > Why have a stub for bacula_gnome at all? > You describe it as " Obsolete bacula gnome console " > Why not just remove from catalog? No, looking at this again, I do want it this way. I want people that had bacula_gnome to get the new (obsolete) package. There is no replacement functionality for this currently. I don't have any other good point to mark it as Incompatible, so I'm providing a stub. > as far as bacula_client_stub.. .seems like it needs to also pull in > bacula_console, to consistently upgrade/replace the older instance > of the bacula_client package? See previous. I was confusing bacula_gnome with the tray monitor functionality, but my argument is the same. Most sites installing the client package wanted the file daemon. This upgrade will provide that. Having the tray-monitor go missing after upgrade while maybe not ideal will not break anything and is easily discoverable. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 13 22:08:31 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:08:31 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu May 12 16:36:11 -0400 2011: > >> old: >> bacula_client ? == bconsole, gconsole, bacula-fd, and assorted bacular tools >> bacula_gnome == bgnome-console, bregex, bwild >> >> new: >> bacula_client (stub) ? == (rename, plus pulls in bacula-fd)?? >> bacula_gnome(stub) == (pulls in bacula_client), does nothing else, I think >> >> Why have a stub for bacula_gnome at all? >> You describe it as " Obsolete bacula gnome console " >> Why not just remove from catalog? > > A fair critique, but I prefer the obsoletes mechanism to the I dep > mechanism. > Errr.. I didnt suggest "I dep". I suggested just removing it from the catalog. the way you are doing it... if they do an upgrade, it will remove something that they are potentially using. with no replacement. I dont think thats good for users. >> as far as bacula_client_stub.. .seems like it needs to also pull in >> bacula_console, to consistently upgrade/replace the older instance of >> the bacula_client package? > > I agree with what you're saying, but I want these things split > entirely and am only leaving client package as a convenience. yes. and once again, I was not disagreeing with your split. I'm saying that your handling of the stub, does not leave something that is "convenient" to the user. Please reread what I wrote. > If I reversed what was included now vs then, I'd agree...people > wouldn't be happy. ?As it stands, they'll find bconsole missing and > then look for the new tool and pull it in. ?(Or more commonly, I > expect they won't miss it since it was only there to get bacula-fd.) errr... .the *whole point* of stubs, is that people dont have to "go look for what is missing". the stubs are supposed to pull in everything they had before. Then its up to the user to decide, "Hey, things are more granular now.. I now have the *option* of removing stuff I dont want, if I no longer want it". It should be up to the USER, not you, to decide whether or not to remove something they previously had installed. From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 14 05:15:43 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:15:43 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libntlm0, libntlm_dev, libntlm_stub In-Reply-To: <201105130921.p4D9LQ6B020958@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105130921.p4D9LQ6B020958@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Packages split > > * libntlm: new package > ?+ libntlm0-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libntlm0-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libntlm_dev-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libntlm_dev-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libntlm_stub-1.2,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 14 05:38:23 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:38:23 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libspf2_2, libspf2_dev, libspf2_stub, (...) In-Reply-To: <201105131115.p4DBFH06026001@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105131115.p4DBFH06026001@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Split packages > > * libspf2: new package > ?+ libspf2_2-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspf2_2-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspf2_dev-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspf2_dev-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspf2_stub-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspf2_utils-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspf2_utils-1.2.9,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 14 05:40:58 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:40:58 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.2 In-Reply-To: <201105131521.53450.ai@opencsw.org> References: <201105111429.07163.ai@opencsw.org> <201105131521.53450.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 14 05:56:44 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:56:44 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libpakchois0, libpakchois_dev, pakcho(...) In-Reply-To: <201105131122.p4DBMVJl004552@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105131122.p4DBMVJl004552@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Package split. > > * pakchois: new package > ?+ libpakchois0-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpakchois0-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpakchois_dev-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpakchois_dev-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ pakchois_stub-0.4,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From bwalton at opencsw.org Sat May 14 14:36:58 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 14:36:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) Message-ID: <201105141236.p4ECawqN002861@login.bo.opencsw.org> Modified obsoletions. Thanks -Ben * bacula: major version upgrade - from: 2.2.8,REV=2008.01.28 - to: 5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14 + bacula-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_client-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz * cas_usergroup: minor version upgrade - from: 1.42,REV=2010.11.26 - to: 1.44,REV=2011.05.02 + cas_usergroup-1.44,REV=2011.05.02-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz * bacula: new package + bacula_client_stub-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_common-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_common-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_console-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_console-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_director-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_director-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_doc-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_fd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_fd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_gnome_stub-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_sd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_sd-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_tray_monitor-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bacula_tray_monitor-5.0.3,REV=2011.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bwalton at opencsw.org Sat May 14 14:39:53 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:39:53 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri May 13 16:08:31 -0400 2011: > the way you are doing it... if they do an upgrade, it will remove > something that they are potentially using. with no replacement. I > dont think thats good for users. If I just drop it from the catalog, that leaves a file conflict with the new director package. Additionally, bgnome-console is no longer supported as per --enable-gnome. Thus it needs to be removed. > Then its up to the user to decide, "Hey, things are more granular > now.. I now have the *option* of removing stuff I dont want, if I no > longer want it". Fine. See resubmission. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 14 16:19:00 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 07:19:00 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri May 13 16:08:31 -0400 2011: > >> the way you are doing it... if they do an upgrade, it will remove >> something that they are potentially using. with no replacement. ?I >> dont think thats good for users. > > If I just drop it from the catalog, that leaves a file conflict with > the new director package. well that's a good point. but its not the only thing to be considered... >?Additionally, bgnome-console is no longer > supported as per --enable-gnome. ?Thus it needs to be removed. There is a difference between "is not compiled any more" and "does not work any more" Does it "not work" any more? (if it truly does not work, then the rest of this email is invalid) I'm guessing that it does, but it is just "obsolete". After all, its just a front end wrapper. There is also something I didnt think of previously: things renamed as "_stub", get removed by pkg_util, I believe you said. Again, this is not a good way to treat our users, if they actually want the binaries. Which they presumably did, because they had to explicitly type (install) bacula_gnome to get it. It is not pulled in by anything else. I know its not your favourite thing to do, but how about this: extract just the actual "bacula-gnome" stuff, from the old package that does not conflict, and make a new, binary-only package for "bacula-gnome". By all means still keep the "Obsolete (not supported any more)" in the description. Then you can forget about it for future upgrades? I apologize for the extended back and forth about this, and that I didnt realize this sooner. Please keep in mind that this isnt about "us", it's about our users. From bonivart at opencsw.org Sun May 15 14:56:01 2011 From: bonivart at opencsw.org (Peter Bonivart) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:56:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pkgutil, pkgutilplus Message-ID: <201105151256.p4FCu1jM000058@login.bo.opencsw.org> * pkgutil: minor version upgrade - from: 2.3,REV=2011.02.12 - to: 2.4,REV=2011.05.15 + pkgutil-2.4,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + pkgutil-2.4,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pkgutilplus-2.4,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bwalton at opencsw.org Sun May 15 15:07:18 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 09:07:18 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pkgutil, pkgutilplus In-Reply-To: <201105151256.p4FCu1jM000058@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105151256.p4FCu1jM000058@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305464708-sup-4296@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Peter Bonivart's message of Sun May 15 08:56:01 -0400 2011: > * pkgutil: minor version upgrade > - from: 2.3,REV=2011.02.12 > - to: 2.4,REV=2011.05.15 Who updates the versions stored at http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/pkgutil-`uname -p`.pkg? We should ensure these are freshened too. Looking forward to the new release! Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Sun May 15 15:15:34 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:15:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils Message-ID: <201105151315.p4FDFYIN003404@login.bo.opencsw.org> A small submitpkg modification. * cswutils: minor version upgrade - from: 1.16,REV=2011.05.08 - to: 1.17,REV=2011.05.15 + cswutils-1.17,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From rupert at opencsw.org Sun May 15 15:31:47 2011 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 08:31:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs liblz1, liblz_dev, lzlib_stub Message-ID: <201105151331.p4FDVlJa012851@login.bo.opencsw.org> * lib: minor upgrade + liblz1-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + liblz1-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + liblz_dev-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + liblz_dev-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + lzlib_stub-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bwalton at opencsw.org Sun May 15 18:02:23 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 12:02:23 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305474909-sup-7699@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri May 06 01:15:35 -0400 2011: > you and dagobert have been now churning out a pile of these misnamed > stubs (okay, mostly Dagobert :). > I let a few go by, as a good will gesture, along with a warning, > "hey, this needs to be fixed for next set of packages". they havent > been fixed for next set. so I'm not going to accept them misnamed > any more. This is not a QA issue, it is simply a "my tool doesn't handle this case nicely issue."[1] You are blocking things based on non-policy issues. There is no policy indicating that stub packages must have catalog name matching the old one with _stub appended. As these packages pass all checkpkg tests, I don't see why they're not released...? Thanks -Ben [1] If you think that searching the catalog with pkg-get is a valid enough use case, please put this forward through proper channels. I don't personally hold that opinion as shorter stem works fine and pkgutil handles this nicely anyway. It's not something that can be imposed at your discretion at release time. -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Sun May 15 18:07:56 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 12:07:56 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sat May 14 10:19:00 -0400 2011: > There is a difference between "is not compiled any more" and "does not > work any more" > Does it "not work" any more? I've inquired on the bacula user list for completeness and am waiting to hear back. > I'm guessing that it does, but it is just "obsolete". After all, its > just a front end wrapper. I'm guessing that it is either broken due to protocol changes or doesn't offer enough functionality with new bacula to be worthwhile. > There is also something I didnt think of previously: things renamed as > "_stub", get removed by pkg_util, I believe you said. pkgutil will offer a --cleanup (or some such) option to scour the system for packages that have the 'i obsolete' marker. It'll be a manual action. > I know its not your favourite thing to do, but how about this: > extract just the actual "bacula-gnome" stuff, from the old package > that does not conflict, and make a new, binary-only package for > "bacula-gnome". By all means still keep the "Obsolete (not supported > any more)" in the description. Then you can forget about it for > future upgrades? I'm not going to expend effort to support something that upstream deems obsolete. Any update of this legacy package would also need modification to handle config migration, etc. If _you_ have spare time to throw away on something like this, please do so. I'll revise my package set to accommodate your bacula_gnome work when it's ready. > Please keep in mind that this isnt about "us", it's about our users. If users want to continue running obsolete software, they can avoid updating the whole bacula stack. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Sun May 15 20:19:33 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:19:33 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: <1305474909-sup-7699@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305474909-sup-7699@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305483517-sup-6920@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Ben Walton's message of Sun May 15 12:02:23 -0400 2011: > This is not a QA issue, it is simply a "my tool doesn't handle this > case nicely issue."[1] ...and furthermore, if all you want is a bit of time to modify the tool, I'm ok with that. I don't mind a delay. I do mind a delay for a non-policy issue. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 15 21:52:45 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 12:52:45 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > > I'm not going to expend effort to support something that upstream > deems obsolete. ?Any update of this legacy package would also need > modification to handle config migration, etc. ?If _you_ have spare > time to throw away on something like this, please do so. ?I'll revise > my package set to accommodate your bacula_gnome work when it's ready. > >> Please keep in mind that this isnt about "us", it's about our users. > Tell me Ben... what would you have done, if we were already in "automated release to unstable", and someone filed a bug about this? closed it with status "wonfix", so it migrates into current anyway? What about if, as is more likely, no-one noticed it for 2 weeks, and it made it into current directly... then someone filed a bug, "Hey, I'm using 'current', not 'unstable', but you guys just auto-removed a package I'm using? What's up with that???" That is of course, presuming that they even COULD file a bug. because once bacula_gnome is removed from the catalog, usual practice is to disable the corresponding mantis areas also. From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 15 21:57:17 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 12:57:17 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: <1305474909-sup-7699@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305474909-sup-7699@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Fri May 06 01:15:35 -0400 2011: > >> you and dagobert have been now churning out a pile of these misnamed >> stubs (okay, mostly Dagobert :). > >> I let a few go by, as a good will gesture, along with a warning, >> "hey, this needs to be fixed for next set of packages". ?they havent >> been fixed for next set. ?so I'm not going to accept them misnamed >> any more. > > This is not a QA issue, it is simply a "my tool doesn't handle this > case nicely issue."[1] You are blocking things based on non-policy > issues. This is not about the tool. this is a policy issue, in that we disagree on what policy should be. You dont think it should be a policy, I think it should be. So, since we dont seem to be headed towards an agreement on this, please start a policy vote on it. > ?There is no policy indicating that stub packages must have > catalog name matching the old one with _stub appended. technically speaking, there is no policy on naming of stub packages at all. This is an oversight that needs to be fixed. > As these packages pass all checkpkg tests, I don't see why they're not > released...? checkpkg is not the full embodiment and sum total of policy. It is only a limited verification of certain portions of policy. From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 15 23:47:51 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:47:51 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libwavpack1, libwavpack_dev, wavpack In-Reply-To: <201105131157.p4DBvN40016585@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105131157.p4DBvN40016585@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Split packages > > * libwavpack: new package > ?+ libwavpack1-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libwavpack1-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libwavpack_dev-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libwavpack_dev-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > * wavpack: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2010.01.06 > ?- ? to: 2011.05.13 > ?+ wavpack-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ wavpack-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 15 23:49:48 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:49:48 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libpth20, libpth_dev, pth_stub In-Reply-To: <201105131247.p4DCl7be002716@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105131247.p4DCl7be002716@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Split packages > > * pth: new package > ?+ libpth20-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpth20-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpth_dev-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpth_dev-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ pth_stub-2.0.7,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 15 23:51:01 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:51:01 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pkgutil, pkgutilplus In-Reply-To: <201105151256.p4FCu1jM000058@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105151256.p4FCu1jM000058@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Peter Bonivart wrote: > * pkgutil: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 2.3,REV=2011.02.12 > ?- ? to: 2.4,REV=2011.05.15 > ?+ pkgutil-2.4,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.8-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ pkgutil-2.4,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.8-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ pkgutilplus-2.4,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.8-all-CSW.pkg.gz > From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 15 23:51:39 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:51:39 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils In-Reply-To: <201105151315.p4FDFYIN003404@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105151315.p4FDFYIN003404@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > A small submitpkg modification. > > * cswutils: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.16,REV=2011.05.08 > ?- ? to: 1.17,REV=2011.05.15 > ?+ cswutils-1.17,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 15 23:53:48 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:53:48 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs liblz1, liblz_dev, lzlib_stub In-Reply-To: <201105151331.p4FDVlJa012851@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105151331.p4FDVlJa012851@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:31 AM, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * lib: minor upgrade > ?+ liblz1-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ liblz1-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ liblz_dev-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ liblz_dev-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ lzlib_stub-1.1,REV=2011.05.15-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From bwalton at opencsw.org Mon May 16 03:40:27 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:40:27 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305474909-sup-7699@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305509630-sup-9069@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sun May 15 15:57:17 -0400 2011: > disagree on what policy should be. You dont think it should be a > policy, I think it should be. Correct. > So, since we dont seem to be headed towards an agreement on this, > please start a policy vote on it. No. I'll run a vote on it, but I'm not doing the leg work for you since I don't think it's a required policy. > technically speaking, there is no policy on naming of stub packages > at all. This is an oversight that needs to be fixed. Please feel free to put something forward. In the meantime, you have no reason to block packages based on your personal preferences. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Mon May 16 03:45:45 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:45:45 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305510038-sup-6044@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sun May 15 15:52:45 -0400 2011: > Tell me Ben... what would you have done, if we were already in > "automated release to unstable", and someone filed a bug about this? > closed it with status "wonfix", so it migrates into current anyway? Yes. It's not a bug. The software has changed and I'm updating the package to the modern form. If the current version supported the gnome console and I dropped it, you'd have a point. Again, if _you'd_ like to spend time unrolling a legacy package to make it available, I'll bend the recipe for the modern stuff so it fits. You can put your name on it and handle the bugs that get filed against it. Other than that, providing some air of support a legacy tool that is unsupported by upstream is pointless... Since you like pointing at other distros, show me one that ships modern bacula _and_ the gnome console. Software evolves. > What about if, as is more likely, no-one noticed it for 2 weeks, and > it made it into current directly... then someone filed a bug, "Hey, > I'm using 'current', not 'unstable', but you guys just auto-removed > a package I'm using? What's up with that???" Well, both current and unstable are moving targets. Versions can and do change. If we were talking about stable, that would be different. > That is of course, presuming that they even COULD file a > bug. because once bacula_gnome is removed from the catalog, usual > practice is to disable the corresponding mantis areas also. Our users can't figure out how to file a bug? Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 16 15:40:55 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:40:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ggrep Message-ID: <201105161340.p4GDesNc005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> * ggrep: minor version upgrade - from: 2.7,REV=2010.09.22 - to: 2.8,REV=2011.05.16 + ggrep-2.8,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + ggrep-2.8,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 16 15:41:34 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:41:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bison Message-ID: <201105161341.p4GDfYtr006265@login.bo.opencsw.org> * bison: minor version upgrade - from: 2.4.3,REV=2010.10.04 - to: 2.5,REV=2011.05.16 + bison-2.5,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + bison-2.5,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 16 18:24:27 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:24:27 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: <1305510038-sup-6044@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305510038-sup-6044@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sun May 15 15:52:45 -0400 2011: > >> Tell me Ben... what would you have done, if we were already in >> "automated release to unstable", and someone filed a bug about this? >> closed it with status "wonfix", so it migrates into current anyway? > > Yes. ?It's not a bug. ?The software has changed and I'm updating the > package to the modern form. ?If the current version supported the > gnome console and I dropped it, you'd have a point. >... > Since you like > pointing at other distros, show me one that ships modern bacula _and_ > the gnome console. ?Software evolves. The issue here is not about dropping it from the catalog. Its obsolete, I'm all for dropping it. The problem here is that you are going BEYOND that, and forcibly removing a package that a user may wish to keep, without delivering them an automatic upgrade for it. We have NEVER auto-removed a program, without providing a replacement/upgrade for it. Not since day 1, pre-blastwave days. It's bad precedent to start now. >> What about if, as is more likely, no-one noticed it for 2 weeks, and >> it made it into current directly... then someone filed a bug, "Hey, >> I'm using 'current', not 'unstable', but you guys just auto-removed >> a package I'm using? What's up with that???" > > Well, both current and unstable are moving targets. ?Versions can and > do change. ?If we were talking about stable, that would be different. "current", effectively becomes 'stable', if this new "workflow" is voted in. > >> That is of course, presuming that they even COULD file a >> bug. because once bacula_gnome is removed from the catalog, usual >> practice is to disable the corresponding mantis areas also. > > Our users can't figure out how to file a bug? Please re-read that paragraph, slowly. It seems like you didnt actually read it. From bwalton at opencsw.org Mon May 16 18:31:15 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 12:31:15 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305510038-sup-6044@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305563206-sup-1962@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon May 16 12:24:27 -0400 2011: > The issue here is not about dropping it from the catalog. Its > obsolete, I'm all for dropping it. > The problem here is that you are going BEYOND that, and forcibly > removing a package that a user may wish to keep, without delivering > them an automatic upgrade for it. Which is _exactly_ what an update of the last debian release to have the package to the first release that didn't have it would do. It's no longer part of bacula. It should disappear. Again though, please waste _your_ time if you want to see it remain available. I'll post to users@ to warn users of the change. They're reasonable people. They'll understand. And if they don't want to update and lose the package, they can sit on the old version of the entire suite. This is ridiculous. > > Well, both current and unstable are moving targets. ?Versions can and > > do change. ?If we were talking about stable, that would be different. > > "current", effectively becomes 'stable', if this new "workflow" is > voted in. I don't think you understand the proposal. > >> That is of course, presuming that they even COULD file a > >> bug. because once bacula_gnome is removed from the catalog, usual > >> practice is to disable the corresponding mantis areas also. > > > > Our users can't figure out how to file a bug? > > Please re-read that paragraph, slowly. It seems like you didnt > actually read it. In more words than I used last night, you're effectively saying that an intelligent person going to file a bug against bacula_gnome wouldn't (upon finding it missing) file the bug against bacula or bacula_client, etc. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 16 18:34:04 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:34:04 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bison In-Reply-To: <201105161341.p4GDfYtr006265@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105161341.p4GDfYtr006265@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * bison: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 2.4.3,REV=2010.10.04 > ?- ? to: 2.5,REV=2011.05.16 > ?+ bison-2.5,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ bison-2.5,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 16 18:36:40 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:36:40 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ggrep In-Reply-To: <201105161340.p4GDesNc005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105161340.p4GDesNc005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * ggrep: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 2.7,REV=2010.09.22 > ?- ? to: 2.8,REV=2011.05.16 > ?+ ggrep-2.8,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ ggrep-2.8,REV=2011.05.16-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 16 22:16:35 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:16:35 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: <1305563206-sup-1962@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305510038-sup-6044@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305563206-sup-1962@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon May 16 12:24:27 -0400 2011: > >> The issue here is not about dropping it from the catalog. Its >> obsolete, I'm all for dropping it. > >> The problem here is that you are going BEYOND that, and forcibly >> removing a package that a user may wish to keep, without delivering >> them an automatic upgrade for it. > > Which is _exactly_ what an update of the last debian release to have > the package to the first release that didn't have it would do. sorry, I couldnt parse that sentence. > ?Again though, please > waste _your_ time if you want to see it remain available. I dont personally care about it "remaining available". I'm interested in a solution that doesnt screw over users. If you have a different solution that achieves that, please suggest it. Otherwise, you're being rather hardheaded about avoiding a relatively trivial amount of work, that you, the new "maintainer of bacula" should be handling. The icing on the cake is that you only have to do it once and never again. you're really being inconsiderate to our users by refusing to do 10 minutes work, one time. > I'll post to users@ to warn users of the change. ?They're reasonable > people. ?They'll understand. ?And if they don't want to update and > lose the package, they can sit on the old version of the entire suite. They dont get to DO that. "{pkg-get} update all" would blow it away. And before you suggest "well we can implement making a pakage 'stick' and not be upgraded", that makes a bad situation worse. > This is ridiculous. yes it is. it's ridiculous that you are refusing to do 10 minutes of work to clean this up. >> >> That is of course, presuming that they even COULD file a >> >> bug. because once bacula_gnome is removed from the catalog, usual >> >> practice is to disable the corresponding mantis areas also. >> > >> > Our users can't figure out how to file a bug? >> >> Please re-read that paragraph, slowly. It seems like you didnt >> actually read it. > > In more words than I used last night, you're effectively saying that > an intelligent person going to file a bug against bacula_gnome > wouldn't (upon finding it missing) file the bug against bacula or > bacula_client, etc. Or, an intelligent person may just as likely conclude, "great. They screwed things up,and screwed up normal means of reporting it too. No point in filing a bug then, 'cause they wont bother fixing this". The attitude of "its not a problem unless a user files a bug" is a customer-hostile one. From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 10:55:50 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:55:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnuplot, gnuplot_wx Message-ID: <201105170855.p4H8toPx018729@login.bo.opencsw.org> General rework after last discussion for release * gnuplot: minor version upgrade - from: 4.2.6,REV=2009.09.20 - to: 4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13 + gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz * gnuplot_wx: new package + gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 11:14:34 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:14:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, gpgerr_stub, libgpg_error0(...) Message-ID: <201105170914.p4H9EYGx022896@login.bo.opencsw.org> Resubmit with adjusted stub name * gpg: new package + gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + gpgerr_stub-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 11:18:09 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:18:09 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar In-Reply-To: References: <201104281349.p3SDnj1B019153@login.bo.opencsw.org> <81D0BB85-BB7F-4018-BF0C-AEE109ABAAA0@opencsw.org> <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 04.05.2011 um 19:19 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Am 29.04.2011 um 17:21 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> You didnt really answer my questions. Let me simplify and repeat: >>> what percentage of bar users, do you think will actually WANT to >>> modify the rc file? >> >> I don't know. >> >>> And there is a related question: is the rc file most likely to be >>> host-specific, or site-wide specific? >> >> I don't know either. >> >> If in doubt, provide the file in the default location. > > seems like you did not bother to actually examine the file, and are > just packaging "on autopilot". No, I do not. I have manually grabbed the file from the documentation and provided the file as example. > This is not a good thing. > > I have taken the extra time and hassle, to look at the file myself. > Its contents are trivial. purely cosmetic. Yes. That's what bar does. Cosmetic stuff on a pipe. > example: > > # twiddle-background: normal > # twiddle-bold: no > > I would like to ask you revert to the prior maintainer's wisdom, That was not wisdom, the previous package was broken and I deliberately crafted that file. > remove it from /etc/opt/csw and put it in /opt/csw/share/doc/bar as > merely an example > > Clutter in /etc is a bug, not a feature. This is again a non-policy issue. Please release the package. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 11:19:46 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:19:46 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs asciidoc In-Reply-To: References: <201104261124.p3QBOtgw017681@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 28.04.2011 um 22:05 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Just a version bump, no relocation of /etc files yet. > > and when is that going to happen? Probably when I look at it next time. This is again a non-policy issue. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 11:21:34 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:21:34 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libwavpack1, libwavpack_dev, wavpack In-Reply-To: References: <201105131157.p4DBvN40016585@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <2FF88D99-BA88-4402-B5E1-89150DE9CF14@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 15.05.2011 um 23:47 schrieb Philip Brown: > batched It has not appeared on the mirrors. Is your reminder batchjob working? Best regards -- Dago > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Split packages >> >> * libwavpack: new package >> + libwavpack1-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libwavpack1-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libwavpack_dev-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libwavpack_dev-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> * wavpack: revision upgrade >> - from: 2010.01.06 >> - to: 2011.05.13 >> + wavpack-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + wavpack-4.60.1,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> -- >> Generated by submitpkg >> _______________________________________________ >> pkgsubmissions mailing list >> pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org >> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions >> > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 14:51:25 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:51:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libspectre1, libspectre_dev, libspect(...) Message-ID: <201105171251.p4HCpPic016938@login.bo.opencsw.org> Package split. * libspectre: new package + libspectre1-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libspectre1-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libspectre_dev-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libspectre_dev-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libspectre_stub-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bwalton at opencsw.org Tue May 17 15:05:34 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:05:34 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar In-Reply-To: References: <201104281349.p3SDnj1B019153@login.bo.opencsw.org> <81D0BB85-BB7F-4018-BF0C-AEE109ABAAA0@opencsw.org> <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305637507-sup-9079@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Dagobert Michelsen's message of Tue May 17 05:18:09 -0400 2011: > > Clutter in /etc is a bug, not a feature. > > This is again a non-policy issue. Please release the package. Agreed. This is not a gating factor but a personal preference. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 15:34:44 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:34:44 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnuplot, gnuplot_wx In-Reply-To: <201105170855.p4H8toPx018729@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105170855.p4H8toPx018729@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: thanks, but... i dont see them in newpkgs? On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > General rework after last discussion for release > > * gnuplot: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 4.2.6,REV=2009.09.20 > ?- ? to: 4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13 > ?+ gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > * gnuplot_wx: new package > ?+ gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 15:35:32 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:35:32 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libwavpack1, libwavpack_dev, wavpack In-Reply-To: <2FF88D99-BA88-4402-B5E1-89150DE9CF14@opencsw.org> References: <201105131157.p4DBvN40016585@login.bo.opencsw.org> <2FF88D99-BA88-4402-B5E1-89150DE9CF14@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 15.05.2011 um 23:47 schrieb Philip Brown: >> batched > > It has not appeared on the mirrors. Is your reminder batchjob working? I saw the reminder when I got up, which is why I'm poking at things now :) From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 15:39:16 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:39:16 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs asciidoc In-Reply-To: <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> References: <201104261124.p3QBOtgw017681@login.bo.opencsw.org> <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 28.04.2011 um 22:05 schrieb Philip Brown: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> Just a version bump, no relocation of /etc files yet. >> >> and when is that going to happen? > > Probably when I look at it next time. > > This is again a non-policy issue. This is a perfect example of, "not everything is/will be covered in policy explicitly"?But it's still a *quality* issue. and, even if it were possible to cover "everything" in policy.. do we really want a policy doc of encyclopaedic length? It would then become worthless, because then no-one would read the whole thing, and noone would use the whole thing anyway. but anyways, you may notice that I had already pushed it. From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 15:52:04 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:52:04 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar In-Reply-To: References: <201104281349.p3SDnj1B019153@login.bo.opencsw.org> <81D0BB85-BB7F-4018-BF0C-AEE109ABAAA0@opencsw.org> <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, *wave* > > Am 04.05.2011 um 19:19 schrieb Philip Brown: >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> I have taken the extra time and hassle, to look at the file myself. >> Its contents are trivial. purely cosmetic. > > Yes. That's what bar does. Cosmetic stuff on a pipe. ah, thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of a different "bar"; the archive format. > >> example: >> >> # twiddle-background: normal >> # twiddle-bold: no >> >> I would like to ask you revert to the prior maintainer's wisdom, > > That was not wisdom, the previous package was broken and I deliberately > crafted that file. okay, given that I now understand I was looking at the package in an incorrect context, I will attempt to reset myself, and consider things from a fresh view. Are you saying that the program does not work, without that file present? If that is the case, that changes things, and I would certainly let the package through. but unfortunatley, I have just noticed, that it does not seem to be in newpkgs any more somehow? THhis is surprising; i do not think that i removed it. >> Clutter in /etc is a bug, not a feature. > > This is again a non-policy issue. Please release the package. It is more accurate to say that there is *currently* no written policy on this. That is because the maintainers have never DISCUSSED the issue. That does not make it a NON issue. Since you dont agree with what I thought would be an obvious premise, I'll bring it up for discussion on the list. From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 16:01:42 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:01:42 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libspectre1, libspectre_dev, libspect(...) In-Reply-To: <201105171251.p4HCpPic016938@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105171251.p4HCpPic016938@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Package split. > > * libspectre: new package > ?+ libspectre1-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspectre1-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspectre_dev-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspectre_dev-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libspectre_stub-0.2.6,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 16:34:22 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:34:22 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnuplot, gnuplot_wx In-Reply-To: References: <201105170855.p4H8toPx018729@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <3A59DA71-C87F-4069-80EC-C7D07B07C795@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 17.05.2011 um 15:34 schrieb Philip Brown: > thanks, but... i dont see them in newpkgs? Strange... should be there now. Best regards -- Dago > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> General rework after last discussion for release >> >> * gnuplot: minor version upgrade >> - from: 4.2.6,REV=2009.09.20 >> - to: 4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13 >> + gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> * gnuplot_wx: new package >> + gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.13-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> -- >> Generated by submitpkg >> _______________________________________________ >> pkgsubmissions mailing list >> pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org >> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions >> > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 16:37:35 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:37:35 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs asciidoc In-Reply-To: References: <201104261124.p3QBOtgw017681@login.bo.opencsw.org> <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 17.05.2011 um 15:39 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Am 28.04.2011 um 22:05 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>>> Just a version bump, no relocation of /etc files yet. >>> >>> and when is that going to happen? >> >> Probably when I look at it next time. >> >> This is again a non-policy issue. > > This is a perfect example of, "not everything is/will be covered in > policy explicitly" But it's still a *quality* issue. > > and, even if it were possible to cover "everything" in policy.. do we > really want a policy doc of encyclopaedic length? It would then become > worthless, because then no-one would read the whole thing, and noone > would use the whole thing anyway. IMHO we don't want this in the policy. This is more like a thing of beauty. The package will work perfectly fine. Fixing this would be more like a "tweak". Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 16:42:31 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:42:31 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar In-Reply-To: References: <201104281349.p3SDnj1B019153@login.bo.opencsw.org> <81D0BB85-BB7F-4018-BF0C-AEE109ABAAA0@opencsw.org> <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 17.05.2011 um 15:52 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Am 04.05.2011 um 19:19 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> I have taken the extra time and hassle, to look at the file myself. >>> Its contents are trivial. purely cosmetic. >> >> Yes. That's what bar does. Cosmetic stuff on a pipe. > > ah, thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of a different "bar"; > the archive format. Ah, yes. That is completely different :-) >>> example: >>> >>> # twiddle-background: normal >>> # twiddle-bold: no >>> >>> I would like to ask you revert to the prior maintainer's wisdom, >> >> That was not wisdom, the previous package was broken and I deliberately >> crafted that file. > > okay, given that I now understand I was looking at the package in an > incorrect context, I will attempt to reset myself, and consider things > from a fresh view. > > Are you saying that the program does not work, without that file present? > If that is the case, that changes things, and I would certainly let > the package through. > > but unfortunatley, I have just noticed, that it does not seem to be in > newpkgs any more somehow? THhis is surprising; i do not think that i > removed it. The file I included is in the documentation. A great deal of bar is to make it look cool when you watch the pipe progress and finding the correct location of the config file is IMHO the hardest part (also because of this strange name, but it is upstreams choice and using another name would confuse other people coming from different platforms). I could ship an empty file, but having comments with the defaults is better I think. >>> Clutter in /etc is a bug, not a feature. >> >> This is again a non-policy issue. Please release the package. > > It is more accurate to say that there is *currently* no written policy on this. > > That is because the maintainers have never DISCUSSED the issue. > That does not make it a NON issue. > > Since you dont agree with what I thought would be an obvious premise, > I'll bring it up for discussion on the list. This is perfectly ok. But it is not okay to stall package release because of undiscussed policies. If you think of something it must be agreed first on the list before enforcing it. Best regards -- Dago From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 16:54:08 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:54:08 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bar In-Reply-To: References: <201104281349.p3SDnj1B019153@login.bo.opencsw.org> <81D0BB85-BB7F-4018-BF0C-AEE109ABAAA0@opencsw.org> <05C62345-C8AC-4D0B-B203-ED2FF1B8A0E7@opencsw.org> Message-ID: >Since you dont agree with what I thought would be an obvious premise, >> I'll bring it up for discussion on the list. > > This is perfectly ok. But it is not okay to stall package release becaugse > of undiscussed policies. If you think of something it must be agreed first > on the list before enforcing it. Well, there again, we disagree :) a release manager should usually not *reject* a package, unless backed by policy. However, in my view, holding a non-time-critical package pending discussion, is exactly the appropriate thing. This is not a time critical package, as far as I'm aware? :) PS: >A great deal of bar is to >make it look cool when you watch the pipe progress and finding the >correct location of the config file is IMHO the hardest part (also >because of this strange name i think this is repeating myself, but... Given the strange name... putting the templated stuff in etc doesnt actually *help*, if they are going to have difficulty finding the config file. They are probably going to have to go read the docs. And if they read the docs, then they will know where it is, and also where an example file in a cleaner place would be. From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 16:55:53 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:55:53 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs asciidoc In-Reply-To: References: <201104261124.p3QBOtgw017681@login.bo.opencsw.org> <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 17.05.2011 um 15:39 schrieb Philip Brown: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> Am 28.04.2011 um 22:05 schrieb Philip Brown: >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>>>> Just a version bump, no relocation of /etc files yet. >>>> >>>> and when is that going to happen? >>> >>> Probably when I look at it next time. >>> >>> This is again a non-policy issue. >> >> This is a perfect example of, "not everything is/will be covered in >> policy explicitly" But it's still a *quality* issue. >> >> and, even if it were possible to cover "everything" in policy.. do we >> really want a policy doc of encyclopaedic length? It would then become >> worthless, because then no-one would read the whole thing, and noone >> would use the whole thing anyway. > > IMHO we don't want this in the policy. This is more like a thing of > beauty. The package will work perfectly fine. Fixing this would be > more like a "tweak". well how about that.. we are "violently agreeing" :) Please chime in your voice next time to support me, then, the next time I tell someone, "no, not EVERYTHING should be in policy" ;-) From bwalton at opencsw.org Tue May 17 17:14:12 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:14:12 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs asciidoc In-Reply-To: References: <201104261124.p3QBOtgw017681@login.bo.opencsw.org> <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305645190-sup-6738@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 10:55:53 -0400 2011: > Please chime in your voice next time to support me, then, the next > time I tell someone, "no, not EVERYTHING should be in policy" ;-) Nobody else is claiming that _everything_ should be policy. What we're claiming is that the role of release manager is to enforce policy, not opinion. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From markp at opencsw.org Tue May 17 17:49:06 2011 From: markp at opencsw.org (Mark Phillips) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 17:49:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster Message-ID: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> Also fixed a couple of bugs in Mantis; 4725 & 4767 * puppet: patchlevel upgrade - from: 2.6.6,REV=2011.03.13 - to: 2.6.8,REV=2011.05.17 + puppet-2.6.8,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + puppetmaster-2.6.8,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 18:17:15 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:17:15 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs asciidoc In-Reply-To: <1305645190-sup-6738@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201104261124.p3QBOtgw017681@login.bo.opencsw.org> <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> <1305645190-sup-6738@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 10:55:53 -0400 2011: > > >> Please chime in your voice next time to support me, then, the next >> time I tell someone, "no, not EVERYTHING should be in policy" ;-) > > Nobody else is claiming that _everything_ should be policy. ?What > we're claiming is that the role of release manager is to enforce > policy, not opinion. What Dagobert wrote, has the additional implication of, "no it is not in policy, but it is still worthwhile". That, is my point. From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 18:24:23 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:24:23 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnuplot, gnuplot_wx In-Reply-To: <3A59DA71-C87F-4069-80EC-C7D07B07C795@opencsw.org> References: <201105170855.p4H8toPx018729@login.bo.opencsw.org> <3A59DA71-C87F-4069-80EC-C7D07B07C795@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 17.05.2011 um 15:34 schrieb Philip Brown: >> thanks, but... i dont see them in newpkgs? > > Strange... should be there now. > > Right you are. Ugh. it has some very heavy dependancies still. fontconfig, cairo, pango.... but, since even debian "gnuplot_nox" still depends on cairo, I'll pass it through. Thanks for the update. From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 18:26:38 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:26:38 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster In-Reply-To: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: thanks. passing it through for now. fyi, though, there's some kind of glitch with your build. OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=https://gar.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/puppet/trunk at UNCOMMITTED but since that isnt exactly a fatal error, it's going through. On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Mark Phillips wrote: > Also fixed a couple of bugs in Mantis; 4725 & 4767 > > * puppet: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 2.6.6,REV=2011.03.13 > ?- ? to: 2.6.8,REV=2011.05.17 > ?+ puppet-2.6.8,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ puppetmaster-2.6.8,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > From bwalton at opencsw.org Tue May 17 18:31:37 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:31:37 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster In-Reply-To: References: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:26:38 -0400 2011: Hi Mark, > OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=https://gar.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/puppet/trunk at UNCOMMITTED Phil: This does get registered in the DB, no? I think this would happen if you did: mgar package !!notice UNCOMMITTED!! mgar commit mgar repackage The repackage would fix the file names but it wouldn't regenerate the pkg info file. For that, you need to do: mgar remerge repackage instead of just mgar repackage. Just a hunch, this could be way off. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 18:40:46 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:40:46 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster In-Reply-To: <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:26:38 -0400 2011: > > Hi Mark, > >> OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=https://gar.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/puppet/trunk at UNCOMMITTED > > Phil: This does get registered in the DB, no? yes, see http://www.opencsw.org/packages/puppet/ Since people can still trim off the @UNCOMMITTED and get something useful, I deemed it non-fatal. > I think this would happen if you did: > > mgar package > !!notice UNCOMMITTED!! > mgar commit > mgar repackage > > The repackage would fix the file names but it wouldn't regenerate the > pkg info file. ?For that, you need to do: mgar remerge repackage > instead of just mgar repackage. > > Just a hunch, this could be way off. Reguardless of what triggered it, I think that the mgar [re]package code, should refuse to continue if it attempts to package something with OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=.*UNCOMMITTED From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 18:47:05 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:47:05 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: <1305509630-sup-9069@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105041748.p44HmMF9026139@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1304650265-sup-8640@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305474909-sup-7699@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305509630-sup-9069@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Ben Walton wrote: >Please feel free to put something forward. ?In the meantime, you have > no reason to block packages based on your personal preferences. In the absence of specific policy covering an area, it is a release manager's role (in ANY organization) to exercise their best judgement on whether something is good or not. That is the whole point of having a human, vs an automated machine in the position. I am taking a stand on this, not merely as a "preference" issue, but because I believe it is the best, most consistent thing for us to be doing. (Note: "preference" comes into play, when there is no technical argument one way or the other. In this case, there is a technical argument to be followed) FYI, to tie loose ends together in this archive; since you declined to start a vote off, I have started a discussion about stub naming on the maintainer list . From bwalton at opencsw.org Tue May 17 18:47:49 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:47:49 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster In-Reply-To: References: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305650813-sup-2188@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:40:46 -0400 2011: > yes, see http://www.opencsw.org/packages/puppet/ > > Since people can still trim off the @UNCOMMITTED and get something > useful, I deemed it non-fatal. I agree it's non-fatal, I was just clarifying. > Reguardless of what triggered it, I think that the mgar [re]package > code, should refuse to continue if it attempts to package something > with OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=.*UNCOMMITTED Actually, this should be a check added to checkpkg. The [re]package target in mgar shouldn't care about this. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 18:48:48 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:48:48 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gpg_error, gpgerr_stub, libgpg_error0(...) In-Reply-To: <201105170914.p4H9EYGx022896@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105170914.p4H9EYGx022896@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Issue with stub naming. Packages on hold, pending the maintainer list discussion on stub naming that I just kicked off. please remind me about this package, if discussion results in consensus that this naming is preferred. On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Resubmit with adjusted stub name > > * gpg: new package > ?+ gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gpg_error-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gpgerr_stub-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libgpg_error0-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libgpg_error_dev-1.10,REV=2011.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 18:49:44 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:49:44 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster In-Reply-To: <1305650813-sup-2188@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305650813-sup-2188@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:40:46 -0400 2011: >> Reguardless of what triggered it, I think that the mgar [re]package >> code, should refuse to continue if it attempts to package something >> with OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=.*UNCOMMITTED > > Actually, this should be a check added to checkpkg. ?The [re]package > target in mgar shouldn't care about this. it would be more efficient (faster-to-fix cycle) if it cared. From bwalton at opencsw.org Tue May 17 19:42:27 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 19:42:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils Message-ID: <201105171742.p4HHgRAC014957@login.bo.opencsw.org> Dependency fix. -Ben * cswutils: minor version upgrade - from: 1.17,REV=2011.05.15 - to: 1.18,REV=2011.05.17 + cswutils-1.18,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 19:56:41 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 19:56:41 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs asciidoc In-Reply-To: References: <201104261124.p3QBOtgw017681@login.bo.opencsw.org> <34074CD4-6182-4F7B-9F01-09B8A23D34ED@opencsw.org> <1305645190-sup-6738@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 17.05.2011 um 18:17 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Ben Walton wrote: >> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 10:55:53 -0400 2011: >>> Please chime in your voice next time to support me, then, the next >>> time I tell someone, "no, not EVERYTHING should be in policy" ;-) >> >> Nobody else is claiming that _everything_ should be policy. What >> we're claiming is that the role of release manager is to enforce >> policy, not opinion. > > What Dagobert wrote, has the additional implication of, "no it is not > in policy, but it is still worthwhile". > That, is my point. That may be your point, but it is not what I meant. It may be worthwhile for discussion (which anybody is free to do and which is not a problem) but it is not a "non-policy" to be applied to packages in the release queue. Package beauty has nothing to do with release. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 20:00:13 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 20:00:13 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster In-Reply-To: <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Ben, Am 17.05.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Ben Walton: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:26:38 -0400 2011: >> OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=https://gar.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/pkg/puppet/trunk at UNCOMMITTED > > Phil: This does get registered in the DB, no? > > I think this would happen if you did: > > mgar package > !!notice UNCOMMITTED!! > mgar commit > mgar repackage > > The repackage would fix the file names but it wouldn't regenerate the > pkg info file. It would, "repackage" rebuilds all files relevant to packaging including pkginfo. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 17 20:05:56 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 20:05:56 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs puppet, puppetmaster In-Reply-To: <1305650813-sup-2188@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105171549.p4HFn6NP024022@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305649802-sup-9503@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305650813-sup-2188@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Ben, (moving to maintainers@) Am 17.05.2011 um 18:47 schrieb Ben Walton: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue May 17 12:40:46 -0400 2011: > >> yes, see http://www.opencsw.org/packages/puppet/ >> >> Since people can still trim off the @UNCOMMITTED and get something >> useful, I deemed it non-fatal. > > I agree it's non-fatal, I was just clarifying. I think it should be fatal: not because the error is that big, but because 1) it can result in privately build, non-repeatable package builds 2) it breaks browsing of the repository 3) it is really easy to fix >> Reguardless of what triggered it, I think that the mgar [re]package >> code, should refuse to continue if it attempts to package something >> with OPENCSW_REPOSITORY=.*UNCOMMITTED > > Actually, this should be a check added to checkpkg. The [re]package > target in mgar shouldn't care about this. I thought submitpkg already had a trigger in it refusing to submit uncommitted packages? Best regards -- Dago From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 17 20:14:41 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:14:41 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils In-Reply-To: <201105171742.p4HHgRAC014957@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105171742.p4HHgRAC014957@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > Dependency fix. > -Ben > > * cswutils: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.17,REV=2011.05.15 > ?- ? to: 1.18,REV=2011.05.17 > ?+ cswutils-1.18,REV=2011.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 18 11:05:04 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:05:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libpcap1, libpcap_dev, libpcap_devel_(...) Message-ID: <201105180905.p4I954d8029293@login.bo.opencsw.org> * libpcap: new package + libpcap1-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libpcap1-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libpcap_dev-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libpcap_dev-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libpcap_devel_stub-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libpcap_stub-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From ihsan at opencsw.org Wed May 18 14:14:44 2011 From: ihsan at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?B?xLBoc2FuIERvxJ9hbg==?=) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:14:44 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ldnsdrill, libldns1, libldns_devel In-Reply-To: References: <201105081308.p48D866j027555@login.bo.opencsw.org> <4DCA5EA4.8070406@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <4DD3B834.4020308@opencsw.org> Ah yeah right. I'll repackage it then. On 05/11/11 12:58 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > Hi Ihsan, > > It should be -dev, not devel. > > Thanks > -Ben > > "?hsan Do?an" wrote: > > On 05/ 9/11 06:28 PM, Philip Brown wrote: >> + > libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + > libldns_devel-1.6.9,REV=2011.05.08-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ` > > > mis name What exactly is not right? Ihsan -- ihsan at dogan.ch > http://blog.dogan.ch/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > pkgsubmissions mailing list pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > > > > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions -- ihsan at dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/ From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 18 18:32:05 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:32:05 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libpcap1, libpcap_dev, libpcap_devel_(...) In-Reply-To: <201105180905.p4I954d8029293@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105180905.p4I954d8029293@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * libpcap: new package > ?+ libpcap1-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpcap1-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpcap_dev-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpcap_dev-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpcap_devel_stub-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libpcap_stub-1.1.1,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 18 21:56:45 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:56:45 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305510038-sup-6044@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305563206-sup-1962@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305748477-sup-376@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon May 16 16:16:35 -0400 2011: > sorry, I couldnt parse that sentence. It doesn't matter now. I withdraw this set. It contained gzipped manpages which are invalid. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From bwalton at opencsw.org Thu May 19 04:30:07 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:30:07 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...) In-Reply-To: <1305748477-sup-376@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201105122011.p4CKBUu3001252@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1305311425-sup-4534@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305376689-sup-8059@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305475376-sup-1038@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305510038-sup-6044@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305563206-sup-1962@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> <1305748477-sup-376@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <1305772162-sup-6957@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Ben Walton's message of Wed May 18 15:56:45 -0400 2011: > It doesn't matter now. I withdraw this set. It contained gzipped > manpages which are invalid. Acutally, you can still push cas_usergroup. You already indicated it was fine. The dependency in the set is from bacula to the cas, so pushing the cas without bacula is fine. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From dam at opencsw.org Thu May 19 11:30:44 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:30:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs fftw, libfftw3_3, libfftw3threads3, l(...) Message-ID: <201105190930.p4J9Ui2l008062@login.bo.opencsw.org> General rework with enabling of new features on fftw. Best regards -- Dago fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz From dam at opencsw.org Thu May 19 15:49:29 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:49:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libsmi2, libsmi_dev, libsmi_mibs, lib(...) Message-ID: <201105191349.p4JDnT8h005131@login.bo.opencsw.org> Split packages * libsmi_mibs: revision upgrade - from: 2009.11.25 - to: 2011.05.19 + libsmi_mibs-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz * libsmi: new package + libsmi2-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libsmi2-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsmi_dev-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libsmi_dev-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsmi_stub-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libsmi_utils-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libsmi_utils-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsmimibs_stub-0.4.8,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Thu May 19 16:01:12 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:01:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libtasn1_3, libtasn1_dev, libtasn1_de(...) Message-ID: <201105191401.p4JE1CXR018273@login.bo.opencsw.org> * libtasn1_3: revision upgrade - from: 2010.12.14 - to: 2011.05.05 + libtasn1_3-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_3-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz * libtasn1: new package + libtasn1_dev-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_dev-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_devel_stub-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_stub-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_utils-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_utils-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Thu May 19 16:10:32 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:10:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libidn11, libidn_dev, libidn_stub, li(...) Message-ID: <201105191410.p4JEAWRU009031@login.bo.opencsw.org> Version bump * libidn: minor version upgrade - from: 1.21,REV=2011.04.25 - to: 1.22,REV=2011.05.05 + libidn11-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libidn11-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libidn_dev-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libidn_dev-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libidn_stub-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libidn_utils-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libidn_utils-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 19 18:34:24 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:34:24 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] cas_usergroup Message-ID: On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > > > Acutally, you can still push cas_usergroup. ?You already indicated it > was fine. ?The dependency in the set is from bacula to the cas, so > pushing the cas without bacula is fine. > okiedokie. now batched From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 20 00:02:21 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:02:21 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs fftw, libfftw3_3, libfftw3threads3, l(...) In-Reply-To: <201105190930.p4J9Ui2l008062@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105190930.p4J9Ui2l008062@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Errr.. only half showed up. bender$ /bin/pwd /home/newpkgs bender$ ls -d *fft* libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > General rework with enabling of new features on fftw. > > Best regards > > ?-- Dago > > fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 20 00:13:05 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:13:05 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libtasn1_3, libtasn1_dev, libtasn1_de(...) In-Reply-To: <201105191401.p4JE1CXR018273@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105191401.p4JE1CXR018273@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: thanks. batching On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * libtasn1_3: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2010.12.14 > ?- ? to: 2011.05.05 > ?+ libtasn1_3-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_3-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > * libtasn1: new package > ?+ libtasn1_dev-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_dev-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_devel_stub-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_stub-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_utils-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_utils-2.9,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 20 00:17:42 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:17:42 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libidn11, libidn_dev, libidn_stub, li(...) In-Reply-To: <201105191410.p4JEAWRU009031@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105191410.p4JEAWRU009031@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Errr.. you re-generated the "stub" package? Seems like a gar bug. ignoring that. processing rest. On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Version bump > > * libidn: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.21,REV=2011.04.25 > ?- ? to: 1.22,REV=2011.05.05 > ?+ libidn11-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libidn11-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libidn_dev-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libidn_dev-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libidn_stub-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libidn_utils-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libidn_utils-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 20 13:18:39 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 13:18:39 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs fftw, libfftw3_3, libfftw3threads3, l(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105190930.p4J9Ui2l008062@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <54DCF048-CCD8-4E5C-A896-6509D469A554@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 20.05.2011 um 00:02 schrieb Philip Brown: > Errr.. only half showed up. Ok, I copied these again. Best regards -- Dago > > bender$ /bin/pwd > /home/newpkgs > bender$ ls -d *fft* > libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> General rework with enabling of new features on fftw. >> >> Best regards >> >> -- Dago >> >> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pkgsubmissions mailing list >> pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org >> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions >> > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 20 13:23:19 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 13:23:19 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libidn11, libidn_dev, libidn_stub, li(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201105191410.p4JEAWRU009031@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <64D6E6B6-440B-4F9A-B876-A2E2707CD3C2@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 20.05.2011 um 00:17 schrieb Philip Brown: > Errr.. you re-generated the "stub" package? > Seems like a gar bug. Nope, that is intentional. The stub package must be kept until we have defined releases where we can mandate updates and drop stubs after one of such defined releases. Until then it may happen that an extra library appears in a future version needed by the base library making a rebuild of the stub necessary for consistency. You can safely ignore the stub this time, but not in general. > ignoring that. processing rest. Best regartds -- Dago > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Version bump >> >> * libidn: minor version upgrade >> - from: 1.21,REV=2011.04.25 >> - to: 1.22,REV=2011.05.05 >> + libidn11-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libidn11-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libidn_dev-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libidn_dev-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libidn_stub-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libidn_utils-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> + libidn_utils-1.22,REV=2011.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> -- >> Generated by submitpkg >> _______________________________________________ >> pkgsubmissions mailing list >> pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org >> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions >> > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 20 17:17:03 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:17:03 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs fftw, libfftw3_3, libfftw3threads3, l(...) In-Reply-To: <54DCF048-CCD8-4E5C-A896-6509D469A554@opencsw.org> References: <201105190930.p4J9Ui2l008062@login.bo.opencsw.org> <54DCF048-CCD8-4E5C-A896-6509D469A554@opencsw.org> Message-ID: tanks. batched. On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 20.05.2011 um 00:02 schrieb Philip Brown: >> Errr.. only half showed up. > > Ok, I copied these again. > > > Best regards > > ?-- Dago > >> >> bender$ /bin/pwd >> /home/newpkgs >> bender$ ls -d *fft* >> libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> General rework with enabling of new features on fftw. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> ?-- Dago >>> >>> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> fftw-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3_3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3l3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3l_threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw3threads3-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> libfftw_dev-3.2.2,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pkgsubmissions mailing list >>> pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org >>> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> pkgsubmissions mailing list >> pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org >> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 20 17:17:52 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:17:52 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libidn11, libidn_dev, libidn_stub, li(...) In-Reply-To: <64D6E6B6-440B-4F9A-B876-A2E2707CD3C2@opencsw.org> References: <201105191410.p4JEAWRU009031@login.bo.opencsw.org> <64D6E6B6-440B-4F9A-B876-A2E2707CD3C2@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 20.05.2011 um 00:17 schrieb Philip Brown: >> Errr.. you re-generated the "stub" package? >> Seems like a gar bug. > > Nope, that is intentional. The stub package must be kept until we have > defined releases where we can mandate updates and drop stubs after one > of such defined releases. Until then it may happen that an extra library > appears in a future version needed by the base library making a rebuild > of the stub necessary for consistency. Err, what? could you detail that please? From skayser at opencsw.org Mon May 23 12:36:14 2011 From: skayser at opencsw.org (Sebastian Kayser) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:36:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pv Message-ID: <201105231036.p4NAaEL5029071@login.bo.opencsw.org> * pv: minor version upgrade - from: 1.1.4,REV=2009.05.10 - to: 1.2.0,REV=2011.05.18 + pv-1.2.0,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + pv-1.2.0,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 23 14:33:08 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs parallel Message-ID: <201105231233.p4NCX8qE011039@login.bo.opencsw.org> * parallel: major version upgrade - from: 20110422,REV=2011.04.24 - to: 20110522,REV=2011.05.23 + parallel-20110522,REV=2011.05.23-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 24 23:19:07 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:19:07 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pv In-Reply-To: <201105231036.p4NAaEL5029071@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105231036.p4NAaEL5029071@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Sebastian Kayser wrote: > * pv: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.1.4,REV=2009.05.10 > ?- ? to: 1.2.0,REV=2011.05.18 > ?+ pv-1.2.0,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ pv-1.2.0,REV=2011.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 24 23:20:16 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:20:16 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs parallel In-Reply-To: <201105231233.p4NCX8qE011039@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105231233.p4NCX8qE011039@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * parallel: major version upgrade > ?- from: 20110422,REV=2011.04.24 > ?- ? to: 20110522,REV=2011.05.23 > ?+ parallel-20110522,REV=2011.05.23-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 25 04:44:06 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 04:44:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils Message-ID: <201105250244.p4P2i6qQ015671@login.bo.opencsw.org> A submitpkg tweak. Thanks -Ben * cswutils: minor version upgrade - from: 1.18,REV=2011.05.17 - to: 1.19,REV=2011.05.25 + cswutils-1.19,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 25 21:36:59 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:36:59 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils In-Reply-To: <201105250244.p4P2i6qQ015671@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105250244.p4P2i6qQ015671@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > A submitpkg tweak. > and by "tweak", you mean, "spam people about using 'the new package upload tool.' " http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/devel/2011-May/019124.html batched From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 25 21:45:16 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:45:16 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cswutils In-Reply-To: References: <201105250244.p4P2i6qQ015671@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1306352684-sup-9829@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Wed May 25 15:36:59 -0400 2011: > and by "tweak", you mean, > "spam people about using 'the new package upload tool.' " No, that was the last update. This was a functional change. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From ai at opencsw.org Thu May 26 12:54:17 2011 From: ai at opencsw.org (Andy Igoshin) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 14:54:17 +0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.3 Message-ID: <201105261454.17343.ai@opencsw.org> nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Andy Igoshin Voronezh State University Phone: +7 473 2522406 Network Operation Center Fax: +7 473 2208820 Voronezh, Russia From ellson at opencsw.org Thu May 26 14:50:48 2011 From: ellson at opencsw.org (John Ellson) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 14:50:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs swig Message-ID: <201105261250.p4QComgj009277@login.bo.opencsw.org> * swig: major version upgrade - from: 1.3.40,REV=2010.02.23 - to: 2.0.3,REV=2011.05.21 + swig-2.0.3,REV=2011.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + swig-2.0.3,REV=2011.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 26 18:15:17 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:15:17 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs nginx-1.0.3 In-Reply-To: <201105261454.17343.ai@opencsw.org> References: <201105261454.17343.ai@opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Andy Igoshin wrote: > nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.10-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.10-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > nginx-1.0.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > > -- > Andy Igoshin ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Voronezh State University > Phone: +7 473 2522406 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Network Operation Center > Fax: ? +7 473 2208820 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Voronezh, Russia > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 26 18:17:54 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:17:54 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs swig In-Reply-To: <201105261250.p4QComgj009277@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105261250.p4QComgj009277@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: you might wanna clean up /opt/csw/share/man/man1/ccache-swig.1 in the future, and replace /usr/local with /opt/csw package is now batched, though On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:50 AM, John Ellson wrote: > * swig: major version upgrade > ?- from: 1.3.40,REV=2010.02.23 > ?- ? to: 2.0.3,REV=2011.05.21 > ?+ swig-2.0.3,REV=2011.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ swig-2.0.3,REV=2011.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 27 10:24:01 2011 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 10:24:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnuplot, gnuplot_wx Message-ID: <201105270824.p4R8O1WK009237@login.bo.opencsw.org> This fixes #4773 * gnuplot: revision upgrade - from: 2011.05.13 - to: 2011.05.25 + gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 27 23:57:56 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:57:56 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnuplot, gnuplot_wx In-Reply-To: <201105270824.p4R8O1WK009237@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105270824.p4R8O1WK009237@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > This fixes #4773 > > * gnuplot: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2011.05.13 > ?- ? to: 2011.05.25 > ?+ gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnuplot-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnuplot_wx-4.4.3,REV=2011.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From bwalton at opencsw.org Mon May 30 02:59:09 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 02:59:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs exim Message-ID: <201105300059.p4U0x9Hp009835@login.bo.opencsw.org> Version bump to address CVE-2011-1407. Also addresses mantis id 3492. Thanks -Ben * exim: minor version upgrade - from: 4.72,REV=2010.12.18 - to: 4.76,REV=2011.05.19 + exim-4.76,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + exim-4.76,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 30 18:42:07 2011 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 09:42:07 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs exim In-Reply-To: <201105300059.p4U0x9Hp009835@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105300059.p4U0x9Hp009835@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: btw, I think you managed to remove /usr/local references, so you should probably also remove the references to it in overrides, and the cswreleasenotes file. but anyways, it's batched now. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > Version bump to address CVE-2011-1407. ?Also addresses mantis id 3492. > > Thanks > -Ben > > * exim: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 4.72,REV=2010.12.18 > ?- ? to: 4.76,REV=2011.05.19 > ?+ exim-4.76,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ exim-4.76,REV=2011.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > Generated by submitpkg > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From skayser at opencsw.org Mon May 30 21:14:51 2011 From: skayser at opencsw.org (Sebastian Kayser) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:14:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mgar Message-ID: <201105301914.p4UJEpn3020585@login.bo.opencsw.org> Alternative and enhanced CLI frontend for GAR. * mgar: new package + mgar-0.91,REV=2011.05.30-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bwalton at opencsw.org Mon May 30 21:17:33 2011 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:17:33 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mgar In-Reply-To: <201105301914.p4UJEpn3020585@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201105301914.p4UJEpn3020585@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Sweet! Nice work Sebastian! Thanks -Ben Sebastian Kayser wrote: Alternative and enhanced CLI frontend for GAR. * mgar: new package + mgar-0.91,REV=2011.05.30-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg_____________________________________________ pkgsubmissions mailing list pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: