From bwalton at opencsw.org Sat May 1 20:33:09 2010 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 20:33:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) Message-ID: <201005011833.o41IX92m027160@login.bo.opencsw.org> * git: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.7.0,REV=2010.02.15 - to: 1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24 + git-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + git-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + git_completion-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_cvs-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_devel-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + git_devel-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + git_doc-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_emacs-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + git_gui-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + gitk-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 3 19:05:46 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:05:46 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs git, git_completion, git_cvs, git_dev(...) In-Reply-To: <201005011833.o41IX92m027160@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005011833.o41IX92m027160@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay, batching this lot On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Ben Walton wrote: > * git: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 1.7.0,REV=2010.02.15 > ?- ? to: 1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24 > ?+ git-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git_completion-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git_cvs-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git_devel-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git_devel-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git_doc-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git_emacs-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ git_gui-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gitk-1.7.1,REV=2010.04.24-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 4 10:53:28 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:53:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs diffutils Message-ID: <201005040853.o448rSK8011021@login.bo.opencsw.org> Version bump and addition of gnulinks. Ben: Please remove these links from CSWgnulinks and respin: cmp diff diff3 sdiff Phil: Please release after gnulinks is submitted also. * diffutils: major version upgrade - from: 2.9,REV=2010.02.17 - to: 3.0,REV=2010.05.04 + diffutils-3.0,REV=2010.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + diffutils-3.0,REV=2010.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 5 16:13:36 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:13:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libatk, libatk_devel, mtwrite Message-ID: <201005051413.o45EDaZC020048@login.bo.opencsw.org> * mtwrite: new package + mtwrite-r90214,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + mtwrite-r90214,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz * libatk: minor version upgrade - from: 1.29.92,REV=2010.03.09 - to: 1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05 + libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libatk_devel-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libatk_devel-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 5 18:20:19 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 09:20:19 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libatk, libatk_devel, mtwrite In-Reply-To: <201005051413.o45EDaZC020048@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005051413.o45EDaZC020048@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * mtwrite: new package > ?+ mtwrite-r90214,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ mtwrite-r90214,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > okay. > * libatk: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.29.92,REV=2010.03.09 > ?- ? to: 1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05 > ?+ libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.05-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz fail. NAME=libatk - Developer files for libatk From dam at opencsw.org Thu May 6 09:24:34 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 09:24:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libatk, libatk_devel Message-ID: <201005060724.o467OY0L022602@login.bo.opencsw.org> Ups, try again. * libatk: minor version upgrade - from: 1.29.92,REV=2010.03.09 - to: 1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06 + libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libatk_devel-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libatk_devel-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 6 18:20:07 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 09:20:07 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libatk, libatk_devel In-Reply-To: <201005060724.o467OY0L022602@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005060724.o467OY0L022602@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On 5/6/10, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Ups, try again. > > * libatk: minor version upgrade > - from: 1.29.92,REV=2010.03.09 > - to: 1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06 > + libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > + libatk-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > + libatk_devel-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > + libatk_devel-1.30.0,REV=2010.05.06-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 7 00:41:12 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 15:41:12 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs amanda In-Reply-To: <4BE2C6AA.1080807@cognigencorp.com> References: <4BE2C6AA.1080807@cognigencorp.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Darin Perusich wrote: > Hi Phil, > > New amanda packages are in newpkgs for deployment. hi again Darin, I'm tying multiple threads together, by copying this to the "pkgsubmissions" mailing list. The issues involved, were discussed on the maintainers list, with subject "cswinetd and cswetcservices?" (We also exchanged a few emails privately, after that discussion) Darin, I'm afraid that I'm not going to allow in your latest amanda packages for the following reasons. The summary being, that it goes against core principles of, "To provide a straightforward, easy-to-use experience for the user". You have chosen to deliver it in a way that makes the user unnecessarily jump through more hoops, if they do want it installed and running. While I completely understand your perspective of "off by default, is better/more secure"... that is a choice for you to make for boxes that *you* administer. You should not be imposing your choice on all of our users, if their choice is the opposite. We need to respect our users enough to allow them to make their own choices in the matter. Right now, we have a straightforward, easy to use, *same for everyone*, framework, that allows our users to individually choose whether they want services to automatically be enabled at pkgadd time, or disabled. Please use it. >From your posting on the maintainers list, it seems that you have already done the work to convert the package to use our standard csw----- classes. So this is not even a matter of asking you to do "more" work; only to simply release what you have already done in that regard. The argument of "well this is how it acted previously", is not enough to allow them through. If that were enough, then we would never make significant improvements to our packages. if for some reason you decide to stick with postinstall scripts instead of our easy to use, standardized class action scripts, that is fine... but you will then need to do the extra work of making your postinstall scripts respect the autoenable_demons setting in csw.conf Also recognizing our documented standards, that if that setting is not present, it is understood to be defaulted to "yes, enable them". From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 7 13:29:07 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:29:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gcpio Message-ID: <201005071129.o47BT7ns000317@login.bo.opencsw.org> This is the previous version 2.10. The latest version 2.11 does not compile yet, I am in contact with upstream: * gcpio: new package + gcpio-2.10,REV=2010.05.07-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + gcpio-2.10,REV=2010.05.07-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 7 18:33:44 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:33:44 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs amanda In-Reply-To: <4BE428EB.4020902@cognigencorp.com> References: <4BE2C6AA.1080807@cognigencorp.com> <4BE428EB.4020902@cognigencorp.com> Message-ID: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Darin Perusich wrote: > > I think this is ridiculous. If I was going against the "core principles" > then why wasn't this package denied acceptance previously for that very > reason? > that's a very fair question. The answer is, that when the package was originally created, many many years ago(in 2006, as you say), there was no standard way to tell the users' choice in the matter, let alone a reliable standard framework to make implementing it easy. Now, there is. > This straightforward framework, which the standards pages says is "in > flux", is *only* detailed in the building standards, how is the end user > suppose to know of it's existence? Tell me, if this is so > "straightforward" and "easy to use" which package includes the > /opt/csw/etc/csw.conf and /etc/opt/csw/csw.conf files and where is the > end user documentation detailing the usage? http://www.opencsw.org/standards/csw.conf But you raise a very good point; that this could be better advertised to our users. Thank you for pointing that out! Currently, it is only linked to from our maintainer-side docs. I have now added in a link from our main userguide page as well. > Given this, should one conclude that ?*all* new packages are being > evaluated to ensure they conform with these improvements? I expect not > and this just happened fresh in your mind based on recent discussion. I cant claim that I have evaluated ALL packages... I do it when I have time available for more in-depth analysis. But the intent is certainly there. I believe that I have taken a quick glance at all demon-running packages when I have released them in the past year, and the ones that have demons of some kind, all use our framework, or at least respect csw.conf If they dont, then I may have not been aware that they run demons. From rupert at opencsw.org Fri May 7 20:52:15 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (Rupert THURNER) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:52:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mercurial Message-ID: <201005071852.o47IqFHM028260@login.bo.opencsw.org> * mercurial: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.5.1,REV=2010.04.02 - to: 1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02 + mercurial-1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + mercurial-1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 9 04:53:02 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 19:53:02 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mercurial In-Reply-To: <201005071852.o47IqFHM028260@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005071852.o47IqFHM028260@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: done On Friday, May 7, 2010, Rupert THURNER wrote: > * mercurial: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 1.5.1,REV=2010.04.02 > ?- ? to: 1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02 > ?+ mercurial-1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ mercurial-1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02-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 phil at bolthole.com Sun May 9 04:53:25 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 19:53:25 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gcpio In-Reply-To: <201005071129.o47BT7ns000317@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005071129.o47BT7ns000317@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: done On Friday, May 7, 2010, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > This is the previous version 2.10. The latest version 2.11 does not compile > yet, I am in contact with upstream: > ? > > * gcpio: new package > ?+ gcpio-2.10,REV=2010.05.07-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gcpio-2.10,REV=2010.05.07-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 Darin.Perusich at cognigencorp.com Fri May 7 16:51:23 2010 From: Darin.Perusich at cognigencorp.com (Darin Perusich) Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:51:23 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs amanda In-Reply-To: References: <4BE2C6AA.1080807@cognigencorp.com> Message-ID: <4BE428EB.4020902@cognigencorp.com> On 05/06/2010 06:41 PM, Philip Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Darin Perusich > wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> New amanda packages are in newpkgs for deployment. > > hi again Darin, > > I'm tying multiple threads together, by copying this to the > "pkgsubmissions" mailing list. > The issues involved, were discussed on the maintainers list, with subject > "cswinetd and cswetcservices?" > (We also exchanged a few emails privately, after that discussion) > > Darin, I'm afraid that I'm not going to allow in your latest amanda > packages for the following reasons. The summary being, that it goes > against core principles of, > "To provide a straightforward, easy-to-use experience for the user". I think this is ridiculous. If I was going against the "core principles" then why wasn't this package denied acceptance previously for that very reason? > You have chosen to deliver it in a way that makes the user > unnecessarily jump through more hoops, if they do want it installed > and running. I'm continuing to release amanda no differently then it has been since 2006 when I began maintaining the package. If the manor in which I was releasing the package was causing users to "jump through hoops" as you state wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a bug/feature request to change the behavior? If you review the bugtrack history for amanda you'll see that there has *never* been such a ticket opened, so your insistence that I'm forcing users to "jump through hoops" is baseless and strictly your opinion. > Right now, we have a straightforward, easy to use, *same for > everyone*, framework, that allows our users to individually choose > whether they want services to automatically be enabled at pkgadd time, > or disabled. Please use it. This straightforward framework, which the standards pages says is "in flux", is *only* detailed in the building standards, how is the end user suppose to know of it's existence? Tell me, if this is so "straightforward" and "easy to use" which package includes the /opt/csw/etc/csw.conf and /etc/opt/csw/csw.conf files and where is the end user documentation detailing the usage? > From your posting on the maintainers list, it seems that you have > already done the work to convert the package to use our standard > csw----- classes. > So this is not even a matter of asking you to do "more" work; only to > simply release what you have already done in that regard. > > The argument of "well this is how it acted previously", is not enough > to allow them through. If that were enough, then we would never make > significant improvements to our packages. Given this, should one conclude that *all* new packages are being evaluated to ensure they conform with these improvements? I expect not and this just happened fresh in your mind based on recent discussion. > if for some reason you decide to stick with postinstall scripts > instead of our easy to use, standardized class action scripts, that is > fine... but you will then need to do the extra work of making your > postinstall scripts respect the autoenable_demons setting in csw.conf > Also recognizing our documented standards, that if that setting is not > present, it is understood to be defaulted to "yes, enable them". -- Darin Perusich Unix Systems Administrator Cognigen Corporation 395 Youngs Rd. Williamsville, NY 14221 Phone: 716-633-3463 Email: darinper at cognigencorp.com From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 11 22:04:59 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:04:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd Message-ID: <201005112004.o4BK4xm1012324@login.bo.opencsw.org> Hi, this is a courtesy release for Benny as he is probably busy with his new job. It fixes a bug with libjpeg-linkage and needs to be fixed before the dozen other packages depending on it can be rebuilt. * pm_gd: minor version upgrade - from: 2.44,REV=2010.02.08 - to: 2.45,REV=2010.05.07 + pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.07-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.07-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 11 22:06:02 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:06:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs parallel Message-ID: <201005112006.o4BK62Qp016480@login.bo.opencsw.org> * parallel: new package + parallel-20100424,REV=2010.05.11-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 11 22:18:07 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:18:07 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs diffutils In-Reply-To: <201005040853.o448rSK8011021@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005040853.o448rSK8011021@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi, Am 04.05.2010 um 10:53 schrieb Dagobert Michelsen: > Version bump and addition of gnulinks. > > Ben: Please remove these links from CSWgnulinks and respin: > cmp > diff > diff3 > sdiff > > Phil: Please release after gnulinks is submitted also. > > * diffutils: major version upgrade > - from: 2.9,REV=2010.02.17 > - to: 3.0,REV=2010.05.04 > + diffutils-3.0,REV=2010.05.04-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > + diffutils-3.0,REV=2010.05.04-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz Ben, Phil: Ping? Best regards -- Dago From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 12 02:02:28 2010 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 02:02:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnulinks Message-ID: <201005120002.o4C02S2D002567@login.bo.opencsw.org> Drops CSWdiffutils links as they're now provided by CSWdiffutils directly. * gnulinks: revision upgrade - from: 2010.03.26 - to: 2010.05.11 + gnulinks-1.3,REV=2010.05.11-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz Thanks -Ben -- Generated by submitpkg From bwalton at opencsw.org Wed May 12 02:05:44 2010 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:05:44 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs diffutils In-Reply-To: References: <201005040853.o448rSK8011021@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <4BE9F0D8.2090803@opencsw.org> On 05/11/2010 04:18 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: Hi Dago, > Ben, Phil: Ping? Sorry, I missed this. Updated gnulinks submitted just now. Thanks -Ben From phil at opencsw.org Wed May 12 19:30:04 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:30:04 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs diffutils In-Reply-To: <4BE9F0D8.2090803@opencsw.org> References: <201005040853.o448rSK8011021@login.bo.opencsw.org> <4BE9F0D8.2090803@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > On 05/11/2010 04:18 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > > Hi Dago, > >> Ben, Phil: Ping? > > Sorry, I missed this. ?Updated gnulinks submitted just now. > okay, batched them both From phil at opencsw.org Wed May 12 19:30:55 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:30:55 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs parallel In-Reply-To: <201005112006.o4BK62Qp016480@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005112006.o4BK62Qp016480@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * parallel: new package > ?+ parallel-20100424,REV=2010.05.11-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > okay From phil at opencsw.org Wed May 12 19:32:40 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:32:40 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: <201005112004.o4BK4xm1012324@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005112004.o4BK4xm1012324@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi, > > this is a courtesy release for Benny as he is probably busy with his > new job. It fixes a bug with libjpeg-linkage and needs to be fixed before > the dozen other packages depending on it can be rebuilt. > > * pm_gd: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 2.44,REV=2010.02.08 > ?- ? to: 2.45,REV=2010.05.07 > ?+ pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.07-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.07-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > missing dep on CSWlibxpm. From phil at opencsw.org Wed May 12 19:33:39 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:33:39 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: References: <201005112004.o4BK4xm1012324@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Philip Brown wrote: > > > missing dep on CSWlibxpm. > PS: dont forget to REMOVE the now obsolete "CSWxpm" dep while you're there.. unless it really calls the actual command-line utils. From rupert at opencsw.org Fri May 14 07:52:09 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 00:52:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mercurial Message-ID: <201005140552.o4E5q9NA012235@login.bo.opencsw.org> * mercurial: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02 - to: 1.5.3,REV=2010.05.14 + mercurial-1.5.3,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + mercurial-1.5.3,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 14 11:01:58 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:01:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pca, pm_gd Message-ID: <201005140901.o4E91wHk017909@login.bo.opencsw.org> * pca: major version upgrade - from: 20100309.02,REV=2010.03.09 - to: 20100514.01,REV=2010.05.14 + pca-20100514.01,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz This is now linked against SUNW X11/libXpm as there is no necessity for CSW X11. * pm_gd: minor version upgrade - from: 2.44,REV=2010.02.08 - to: 2.45,REV=2010.05.14 + pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 14 14:29:30 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 14:29:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs tmux Message-ID: <201005141229.o4ECTUqI005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> Hi, tested by Trygve. It is a modernized 'screen'. Best regards -- Dago * tmux: new package + tmux-1.2,REV=2010.05.12-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + tmux-1.2,REV=2010.05.12-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 14 16:37:45 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 16:37:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd Message-ID: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> Redo package again. We must depend on OpenCSW X11 or we risc mixed x11.so.4/.6 linking. * pm_gd: minor version upgrade - from: 2.44,REV=2010.02.08 - to: 2.45,REV=2010.05.14 + pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pm_gd-2.45,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 15 05:18:55 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 20:18:55 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Friday, May 14, 2010, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Redo package again. We must depend on OpenCSW X11 or we risc > mixed x11.so.4/.6 linking. > and why is that? xpm? perhaps it is better to rebuild xpm instead? From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 15 05:19:49 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 20:19:49 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs tmux In-Reply-To: <201005141229.o4ECTUqI005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005141229.o4ECTUqI005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: fails checkpkg bad path -- man On Friday, May 14, 2010, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi, > > tested by Trygve. It is a modernized 'screen'. > > Best regards > > ?-- Dago > > * tmux: new package > ?+ tmux-1.2,REV=2010.05.12-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ tmux-1.2,REV=2010.05.12-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 phil at bolthole.com Sat May 15 05:20:42 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 20:20:42 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mercurial In-Reply-To: <201005140552.o4E5q9NA012235@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005140552.o4E5q9NA012235@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay thanks On Thursday, May 13, 2010, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * mercurial: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 1.5.2,REV=2010.05.02 > ?- ? to: 1.5.3,REV=2010.05.14 > ?+ mercurial-1.5.3,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ mercurial-1.5.3,REV=2010.05.14-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 phil at bolthole.com Sat May 15 05:25:23 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 20:25:23 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pca, pm_gd In-Reply-To: <201005140901.o4E91wHk017909@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005140901.o4E91wHk017909@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Friday, May 14, 2010, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * pca: major version upgrade > ?- from: 20100309.02,REV=2010.03.09 > ?- ? to: 20100514.01,REV=2010.05.14 > ?+ pca-20100514.01,REV=2010.05.14-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz pca accepted From rupert at opencsw.org Sat May 15 19:30:30 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 12:30:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs apr Message-ID: <201005151730.o4FHUUPv003979@login.bo.opencsw.org> * apr: minor version upgrade - from: 1.3.9,REV=2010.01.03 - to: 1.4.2,REV=2010.04.19 + apr-1.4.2,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + apr-1.4.2,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From rupert at opencsw.org Sat May 15 19:32:01 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 12:32:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs apache2, apache2_devel Message-ID: <201005151732.o4FHW1Uq011194@login.bo.opencsw.org> * apache2: patchlevel upgrade - from: 2.2.13,REV=2009.08.22 - to: 2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19 + apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + apache2_devel-2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 16 04:24:07 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 19:24:07 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs apr In-Reply-To: <201005151730.o4FHUUPv003979@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005151730.o4FHUUPv003979@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: looks good On Saturday, May 15, 2010, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * apr: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.3.9,REV=2010.01.03 > ?- ? to: 1.4.2,REV=2010.04.19 > ?+ apr-1.4.2,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ apr-1.4.2,REV=2010.04.19-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 phil at bolthole.com Sun May 16 04:24:41 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 19:24:41 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs apache2, apache2_devel In-Reply-To: <201005151732.o4FHW1Uq011194@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005151732.o4FHW1Uq011194@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: apache2_devel ... ummmm empty except for licence file??? On Saturday, May 15, 2010, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * apache2: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 2.2.13,REV=2009.08.22 > ?- ? to: 2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19 > ?+ apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ apache2_devel-2.2.15,REV=2010.04.19-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 rupert at opencsw.org Sun May 16 18:41:45 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 11:41:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs apache2 Message-ID: <201005161641.o4GGfjGj027672@login.bo.opencsw.org> * apache2: patchlevel upgrade - from: 2.2.13,REV=2009.08.22 - to: 2.2.15,REV=2010.05.16 + apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.05.16-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.05.16-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 17 09:22:31 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:22:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pca Message-ID: <201005170722.o4H7MVXq003314@login.bo.opencsw.org> Fix typo. * pca: revision upgrade - from: 2010.05.14 - to: 2010.05.17 + pca-20100514.01,REV=2010.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 17 10:01:43 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:01:43 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: References: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <3F80F30D-0779-4415-BD92-259A30A43EC8@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 15.05.2010 um 05:18 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Friday, May 14, 2010, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> Redo package again. We must depend on OpenCSW X11 or we risc >> mixed x11.so.4/.6 linking. > > and why is that? > xpm? > perhaps it is better to rebuild xpm instead? No, I already build against Sun libxpm and still got the mixed x11.so. 4/so.6 linkage, but didn't looked deeper in it. The reason was that we can't double the Perl-installation just for X11. There are three ways to go: 1. Link against OpenCSW X11 2. Link against Sun X11 and do not package stuff that requires advanced X11 3. Link against Sun X11 and package stuff that requires advanced X11 only for Solaris 10 Initially I wanted to go with 1., but I would also be ok with 3. if you prefer. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 17 10:41:16 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:41:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs tmux Message-ID: <201005170841.o4H8fGtg015174@login.bo.opencsw.org> Now with fixed manpath * tmux: new package + tmux-1.2,REV=2010.05.17-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + tmux-1.2,REV=2010.05.17-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Mon May 17 12:54:57 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:54:57 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs tmux In-Reply-To: References: <201005141229.o4ECTUqI005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: No dia 15 de Maio de 2010 04:19, Philip Brown escreveu: > fails checkpkg bad path -- man ...so it's not just "/opt/csw/man", it's "/opt/csw/man.*". Change 9903[1] turns the disallowed path entries into regexes in checkpkg. [1] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/changeset/9903 From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 17 14:44:26 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:44:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs phpldapadmin Message-ID: <201005171244.o4HCiQIP007947@login.bo.opencsw.org> Fix bug #4419 * phpldapadmin: revision upgrade - from: 2010.02.17 - to: 2010.05.17 + phpldapadmin-1.2.0.5,REV=2010.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 17 15:08:01 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:08:01 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: <3F80F30D-0779-4415-BD92-259A30A43EC8@opencsw.org> References: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> <3F80F30D-0779-4415-BD92-259A30A43EC8@opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 17.05.2010 um 10:01 schrieb Dagobert Michelsen: > Am 15.05.2010 um 05:18 schrieb Philip Brown: >> On Friday, May 14, 2010, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> Redo package again. We must depend on OpenCSW X11 or we risc >>> mixed x11.so.4/.6 linking. >> >> and why is that? >> xpm? >> perhaps it is better to rebuild xpm instead? > > No, I already build against Sun libxpm and still got the mixed > x11.so.4/so.6 > linkage, but didn't looked deeper in it. The reason was that we > can't double > the Perl-installation just for X11. There are three ways to go: > > 1. Link against OpenCSW X11 > 2. Link against Sun X11 and do not package stuff that requires > advanced X11 > 3. Link against Sun X11 and package stuff that requires advanced X11 > only for Solaris 10 > > Initially I wanted to go with 1., but I would also be ok with 3. if > you prefer. The problem is libgd, which currently binds against OpenCSW X11. Until that is split into CSWgd and CSWcxgd I cannot do much. CSWpmgd already depends on CSWxpm which pulls in CSWlibxpm which pulls in CSWx11, so directly depending on X11 now does not make the situation worse. I updated the wiki-page to review CSWgd. Best regards -- Dago From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 17 18:18:04 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:18:04 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: References: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> <3F80F30D-0779-4415-BD92-259A30A43EC8@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > The problem is libgd, which currently binds against OpenCSW X11. > Until that is split into CSWgd and CSWcxgd I cannot do much. > CSWpmgd already depends on CSWxpm which pulls in CSWlibxpm > which pulls in CSWx11, so directly depending on X11 now does > not make the situation worse. I updated the wiki-page to > review CSWgd. Yuck. Thanks for doing the detective work, and the docs. From phil at bolthole.com Mon May 17 18:21:30 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:21:30 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs phpldapadmin In-Reply-To: <201005171244.o4HCiQIP007947@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005171244.o4HCiQIP007947@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Fix bug #4419 > > * phpldapadmin: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2010.02.17 > ?- ? to: 2010.05.17 > ?+ phpldapadmin-1.2.0.5,REV=2010.05.17-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > From phil at opencsw.org Mon May 17 18:23:18 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:23:18 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs tmux In-Reply-To: References: <201005141229.o4ECTUqI005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote: > No dia 15 de Maio de 2010 04:19, Philip Brown escreveu: >> fails checkpkg bad path -- man > > ...so it's not just "/opt/csw/man", it's "/opt/csw/man.*". ?Change > 9903[1] turns the disallowed path entries into regexes in checkpkg. > errr.. not sure why you are doing this. tmux's specific problem, was /opt/csw/man/man1/tmux.1 so, explicit "/opt/csw/man" there. From phil at opencsw.org Mon May 17 18:26:07 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:26:07 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs apache2 In-Reply-To: <201005161641.o4GGfjGj027672@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005161641.o4GGfjGj027672@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:41 AM, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * apache2: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 2.2.13,REV=2009.08.22 > ?- ? to: 2.2.15,REV=2010.05.16 > ?+ apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.05.16-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ apache2-2.2.15,REV=2010.05.16-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > oookay... erm... but you didnt reply to my earlier message, that I saw. are you officially requesting "apache2_devel is now obsolete, in favor of apr. please remove apache2_devel"? From maciej at opencsw.org Mon May 17 18:36:46 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 17:36:46 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs tmux In-Reply-To: References: <201005141229.o4ECTUqI005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: No dia 17 de Maio de 2010 17:23, Philip Brown escreveu: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski > wrote: >> No dia 15 de Maio de 2010 04:19, Philip Brown escreveu: >>> fails checkpkg bad path -- man >> >> ...so it's not just "/opt/csw/man", it's "/opt/csw/man.*". ?Change >> 9903[1] turns the disallowed path entries into regexes in checkpkg. >> > > errr.. not sure why you are doing this. tmux's specific problem, was > /opt/csw/man/man1/tmux.1 > > so, explicit "/opt/csw/man" there. Hum. This particular path wasn't present there, AFAIK. Here's what was in the prototype: d none /opt/csw/man/man1 0755 root bin f none /opt/csw/man/man1/tmux.1 0444 root bin I understood that anything under /opt/csw/man is a no-no. From phil at opencsw.org Mon May 17 19:04:37 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:04:37 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs tmux In-Reply-To: References: <201005141229.o4ECTUqI005210@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote: > No dia 17 de Maio de 2010 17:23, Philip Brown escreveu: >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski >> >>> ...so it's not just "/opt/csw/man", it's "/opt/csw/man.*". ?Change >>> 9903[1] turns the disallowed path entries into regexes in checkpkg. >>> >> >> errr.. not sure why you are doing this. tmux's specific problem, was >> /opt/csw/man/man1/tmux.1 >> >> so, explicit "/opt/csw/man" there. > > Hum. ?This particular path wasn't present there, AFAIK. ?Here's what > was in the prototype: > > d none /opt/csw/man/man1 0755 root bin > f none /opt/csw/man/man1/tmux.1 0444 root bin > > I understood that anything under /opt/csw/man is a no-no. > right. I guess I'm just being picky about your regex. Which is generally a good thing, to be picky about regex's ;-) my checkpkg will pick up "/opt/csw/man/.*", whether or not there is an explicit directory entry for "/opt/csw/man". Mine will NOT pick up "/opt/csw/manatee". (I think). So it is not strictly speaking, "/opt/csw/man.*" From dam at opencsw.org Mon May 17 21:33:48 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 21:33:48 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: References: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> <3F80F30D-0779-4415-BD92-259A30A43EC8@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <9F963342-5609-467C-80A8-DA1A0EF680CD@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 17.05.2010 um 18:18 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Dagobert Michelsen > wrote: >> The problem is libgd, which currently binds against OpenCSW X11. >> Until that is split into CSWgd and CSWcxgd I cannot do much. >> CSWpmgd already depends on CSWxpm which pulls in CSWlibxpm >> which pulls in CSWx11, so directly depending on X11 now does >> not make the situation worse. I updated the wiki-page to >> review CSWgd. > > Yuck. > > Thanks for doing the detective work, and the docs. So until all this is sorted out you release the updated pm_gd, ok? It is better than the current version. Best regards -- Dago From phil at opencsw.org Mon May 17 23:27:17 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:27:17 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_gd In-Reply-To: <9F963342-5609-467C-80A8-DA1A0EF680CD@opencsw.org> References: <201005141437.o4EEbj8a026068@login.bo.opencsw.org> <3F80F30D-0779-4415-BD92-259A30A43EC8@opencsw.org> <9F963342-5609-467C-80A8-DA1A0EF680CD@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 17.05.2010 um 18:18 schrieb Philip Brown: >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Dagobert Michelsen >> wrote: >>> >>> The problem is libgd, which currently binds against OpenCSW X11. >>> Until that is split into CSWgd and CSWcxgd I cannot do much. >>> CSWpmgd already depends on CSWxpm which pulls in CSWlibxpm >>> which pulls in CSWx11, so directly depending on X11 now does >>> not make the situation worse. I updated the wiki-page to >>> review CSWgd. >> >> Yuck. >> >> Thanks for doing the detective work, and the docs. > > So until all this is sorted out you release the updated > pm_gd, ok? It is better than the current version. > Mmm... sorry, dont think so :( I'm not going to allow through any more packages that go in the "wrong direction" from our currently determined course. Ben should, in theory, have been done with the xrender compile last weekend, although I dont see a package yet. Then it should be pretty trivial for someone to recompile libxpm, and then you can do gd, etc. If you dont want to wait for Ben, I could in theory accept my hand-compiled libxrender package in from testing, temporarily. lessee, chain is: libxrender: Ben libxpm: William gd: Rodger pm_gd: Dagobert From rupert at opencsw.org Tue May 18 07:17:03 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 00:17:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libserf Message-ID: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> * libserf: minor version upgrade - from: 0.3.1,REV=2010.02.28 - to: 0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18 + libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at opencsw.org Tue May 18 18:01:04 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:01:04 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libserf In-Reply-To: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:17 PM, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * libserf: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 0.3.1,REV=2010.02.28 > ?- ? to: 0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18 > ?+ libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > From maciej at opencsw.org Tue May 18 18:41:20 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:41:20 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libserf In-Reply-To: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: No dia 18 de Maio de 2010 06:17, THURNER Rupert escreveu: > * libserf: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 0.3.1,REV=2010.02.28 > ?- ? to: 0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18 > ?+ libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz I've looked at this package and it seems like opt/csw/lib/libserf-0.so.0.0.0 has libapr-1.so.0 as NEEDED, but the libserf package doesn't depend on CSWapr (which provides libapr-1.so.0). If this is OK, why is it? From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 18 19:02:38 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:02:38 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libserf In-Reply-To: References: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote: > No dia 18 de Maio de 2010 06:17, THURNER Rupert escreveu: >> * libserf: minor version upgrade >> ?- from: 0.3.1,REV=2010.02.28 >> ?- ? to: 0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18 >> ?+ libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> ?+ libserf-0.6.1,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > I've looked at this package and it seems like > opt/csw/lib/libserf-0.so.0.0.0 has libapr-1.so.0 as NEEDED, but the > libserf package doesn't depend on CSWapr (which provides > libapr-1.so.0). ?If this is OK, why is it? > oh. . good question. the reason, is that my checking, unfortunately associated the libapr need, as contained in CSWapache2rt. IN theory, as things stand right now, libserf is okay, since we have an existing apach2rt that provides "libapr-1.so.0" when and if the apache2 packages are updated, seems like we need to be careful just how they are updated. That is to say, there are a LOT of packages that currently depend on CSWapache2rt. So we need to keep providing that. possibly as a dummy package that just pulls in apr. Hmm. actually, its complicated. for some reason, apxs is in that package, when I might think it would belong in a more _devel package? From maciej at opencsw.org Tue May 18 19:12:04 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:12:04 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libserf In-Reply-To: References: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: No dia 18 de Maio de 2010 18:02, Philip Brown escreveu: >> I've looked at this package and it seems like >> opt/csw/lib/libserf-0.so.0.0.0 has libapr-1.so.0 as NEEDED, but the >> libserf package doesn't depend on CSWapr (which provides >> libapr-1.so.0). ?If this is OK, why is it? >> > > oh. . good question. > > the reason, is that my checking, unfortunately associated the libapr > need, as contained in CSWapache2rt. > > IN theory, as things stand right now, libserf is okay, since we have > an existing apach2rt that provides "libapr-1.so.0" Right, I see it now. It's something that is on my plate. When there are two packages providing the same soname, checkpkg will expect a dependency on the package that provides the one which is first in RPATH. The goal is to have checkpkg say: "You need to depend on either CSWapr or CSWapache2rt". It's not there yet, it'll require some internals refactoring. Thanks for clarifying. I'll send out a notification when it gets sorted out on the checkpkg side. From phil at opencsw.org Tue May 18 19:45:23 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:45:23 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libserf In-Reply-To: References: <201005180517.o4I5H3b1014054@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote: > No dia 18 de Maio de 2010 18:02, Philip Brown escreveu: >> the reason, is that my checking, unfortunately associated the libapr >> need, as contained in CSWapache2rt. >> >> IN theory, as things stand right now, libserf is okay, since we have >> an existing apach2rt that provides "libapr-1.so.0" > > Right, I see it now. ?It's something that is on my plate. ?When there > are two packages providing the same soname, checkpkg will expect a > dependency on the package that provides the one which is first in > RPATH. ?The goal is to have checkpkg say: ?"You need to depend on > either CSWapr or CSWapache2rt". ?It's not there yet, it'll require > some internals refactoring. > > Thanks for clarifying. ?I'll send out a notification when it gets > sorted out on the checkpkg side. > weeeell.l.. it would actually be better, for you to not change code, perhaps. This is an "ugly transitional phase", and we'r'e not handling it well, as far as package planning goes. best thing would be to get the "correct, new stuff" released asap, and then have checkpkg determine, through "usual mechanisms"?, [you should point to *here*], not [here OR here]. At any one time, there should really be only one correct choice, for newly compiled packages. Right now, the correct choice is CSWapachert, it seems to me. From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 19 11:28:34 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:28:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libsigc++, libsigc++_devel Message-ID: <201005190928.o4J9SYXW026010@login.bo.opencsw.org> See my other mail for specifics on the upgrade. * libsigc: major version upgrade - from: 1.2.5 - to: 2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19 + libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz * libsigc++_devel: patchlevel upgrade - from: 2.2.3,REV=2008.12.02.2 - to: 2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19 + libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 19 11:29:49 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:29:49 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] libsigc++ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9E508349-9D9C-4CA5-A07F-1AB19D0F0705@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 30.04.2010 um 18:03 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Dagobert Michelsen > wrote: >> Yes. The standard way would be to make just >> libsigc++ >> libsigc++_devel >> and put both major shared libs in the library package until all >> dependencies have caught up. > > yes, but only if v1 of the lib is officially obsolete and replacable > by v2 for compiling new apps. Current situation: libsigc++ -> gtkmm2 (no packages depend on that) libsigc++rt -> (libsigc++devel, glibmmrt, gtkmmrt) There are no packages depending on glibmmrt, glibmmdevel gtkmmrt, gtkmmdevel I suggest doing the following: - Update libsigc++ and libsigc++devel - Remove libsigc++rt as libraries usually don't have runtime-packages - Remove g*mm* as the libraries are not needed for other packages (or repackage if necessary) Best regards -- Dago From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 19 18:54:36 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:54:36 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libsigc++, libsigc++_devel In-Reply-To: <201005190928.o4J9SYXW026010@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005190928.o4J9SYXW026010@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Amazingly, someone actually tested your stuff in experimental :) and found errors. so I'm reluctant to release. "jdoe" on irc. On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > See my other mail for specifics on the upgrade. > > * libsigc: major version upgrade > ?- from: 1.2.5 > ?- ? to: 2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19 > ?+ libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > * libsigc++_devel: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 2.2.3,REV=2008.12.02.2 > ?- ? to: 2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19 > ?+ libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.19-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 maciej at opencsw.org Thu May 20 13:52:05 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:52:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libxpm, libxpm_devel, xpm Message-ID: <201005201152.o4KBq5j2012821@login.bo.opencsw.org> As requested, rebuilt with linking against libX11.so.4. I have relatively little idea whether this meets all the detailed requirements. There was something weird about linking: the x86 version of the libxpm package don't link against gettext. I went with what the shared libraries were saying, so the dependencies between sparc and x86 packages are slightly different. * xpm: revision upgrade - from: 2010.02.19 - to: 2010.05.20 + libxpm-3.5.8,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libxpm-3.5.8,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libxpm_devel-3.5.8,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libxpm_devel-3.5.8,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + xpm-3.5.8,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + xpm-3.5.8,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Thu May 20 15:30:10 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:30:10 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libxpm, libxpm_devel, xpm In-Reply-To: <201005201152.o4KBq5j2012821@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005201152.o4KBq5j2012821@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: No dia 20 de Maio de 2010 12:52, Maciej Blizinski escreveu: > As requested, rebuilt with linking against libX11.so.4. ?I have relatively > little idea whether this meets all the detailed requirements. ?There was > something weird about linking: the x86 version of the libxpm package don't link > against gettext. ?I went with what the shared libraries were saying, so the > dependencies between sparc and x86 packages are slightly different. About the gettext linking, here's the patch that I used: http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/browser/csw/mgar/pkg/libxpm/trunk/files/0001-Forcing-lintl-on-cxpm.patch?rev=9934 It's the least invasive thing in terms of changing linker options in the build files. Unfortunately, it's not a kind of patch I could push upstream. About the difference between sparc and x86 architectures, looking at libXpm.so, on sparc: [1] NEEDED libintl.so.8 [2] NEEDED libc.so.1 [3] SONAME libXpm.so.4 The same thing on x86: [1] NEEDED libX11.so.4 [2] NEEDED libc.so.1 [3] SONAME libXpm.so.4 Looks like the sparc library depends on gettext, but not on libX11. The i386 library, in turn, depends on libX11, but not on gettext. From bonivart at opencsw.org Thu May 20 17:23:41 2010 From: bonivart at opencsw.org (Peter Bonivart) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:23:41 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs (current) clamav Message-ID: clamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz clamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libclamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libclamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- /peter From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 20 20:51:33 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:51:33 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libxpm, libxpm_devel, xpm In-Reply-To: References: <201005201152.o4KBq5j2012821@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: hmmm.. thanks for the rebuild. I think we really need it to be consistent between arches though. (And, not link the shared lib against intl, since it does not even use it!) since that utils area trivial I don't think gettext is really important here. how about just using the quasisupported way to disable use of gettext completely please? (config.h hack.) if you wanted to submit a patch for upstream you might make --disable-gettext actually work. but I don't care about that right now, just like us to ship a consistent update :-) On Thursday, May 20, 2010, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote: > No dia 20 de Maio de 2010 12:52, Maciej Blizinski escreveu: >> As requested, rebuilt with linking against libX11.so.4. ?I have relatively >> little idea whether this meets all the detailed requirements. ?There was >> something weird about linking: the x86 version of the libxpm package don't link >> against gettext. ?I went with what the shared libraries were saying, so the >> dependencies between sparc and x86 packages are slightly different. > > About the gettext linking, here's the patch that I used: > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/browser/csw/mgar/pkg/libxpm/trunk/files/0001-Forcing-lintl-on-cxpm.patch?rev=9934 > It's the least invasive thing in terms of changing linker options in > the build files. ?Unfortunately, it's not a kind of patch I could push > upstream. > > About the difference between sparc and x86 architectures, looking at > libXpm.so, on sparc: > > [1] ? ? NEEDED ? ? ? ? ?libintl.so.8 > [2] ? ? NEEDED ? ? ? ? ?libc.so.1 > [3] ? ? SONAME ? ? ? ? ?libXpm.so.4 > > The same thing on x86: > > [1] ? ? NEEDED ? ? ? ? ?libX11.so.4 > [2] ? ? NEEDED ? ? ? ? ?libc.so.1 > [3] ? ? SONAME ? ? ? ? ?libXpm.so.4 > > Looks like the sparc library depends on gettext, but not on libX11. > The i386 library, in turn, depends on libX11, but not on gettext. > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 21 01:29:53 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 16:29:53 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs (current) clamav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in progress On Thursday, May 20, 2010, Peter Bonivart wrote: > clamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > clamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libclamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libclamav-0.96.1,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- > /peter > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions > From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 21 15:55:05 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:55:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libtasn1, libtasn1_devel Message-ID: <201005211355.o4LDt5jg012468@login.bo.opencsw.org> * libtasn1: minor version upgrade - from: 2.6,REV=2010.04.20 - to: 2.7,REV=2010.05.21 + libtasn1-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_devel-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libtasn1_devel-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at opencsw.org Fri May 21 18:45:19 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:45:19 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libtasn1, libtasn1_devel In-Reply-To: <201005211355.o4LDt5jg012468@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005211355.o4LDt5jg012468@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * libtasn1: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 2.6,REV=2010.04.20 > ?- ? to: 2.7,REV=2010.05.21 > ?+ libtasn1-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_devel-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libtasn1_devel-2.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > okay From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 21 22:56:28 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:56:28 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libxpm, libxpm_devel, xpm In-Reply-To: References: <201005201152.o4KBq5j2012821@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Sigh. this is turning out to be a much more complex target than I originally advertised to you, Maciej, for which I apologise. if you wish to bail on this, please feel free to say so ;-/ but meanwhile -- Additional issue; Due to messed-up but historical naming, "CSWxpm", needs to either contain the shared libs, or at the minimum, depend on the package that contains the shared libs. Your CSWxpm does not depend on CSWlibxpm, that i can see. (it doesnt technically need it for its own sake, but... http://www.opencsw.org/packages/xpm has many dependancies. AND... our current CSWxpm, ships with both the "cxpm", AND the "sxpm" utils. sxpm probably does need a depend on CSWlibxpm. (checking.. yup! it does) Hmmm.. howeever, the fact that it didnt get enabled, is my fault. needs an updated sunx11_devel package. I just shipped an updated package for it. From bwalton at opencsw.org Sat May 22 00:49:12 2010 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 00:49:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cx_libxrender, libxrender Message-ID: <201005212249.o4LMnCvl016744@login.bo.opencsw.org> As per request. * libxrender: revision upgrade - from: 2010.05.14 - to: 2010.05.20 + libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz * cx_libxrender: new package + cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz Thanks -Ben -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Sat May 22 07:50:36 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 22:50:36 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cx_libxrender, libxrender In-Reply-To: <201005212249.o4LMnCvl016744@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005212249.o4LMnCvl016744@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Friday, May 21, 2010, Ben Walton wrote: > As per request. > > * libxrender: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2010.05.14 > ?- ? to: 2010.05.20 > ?+ libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > thanks batched > * cx_libxrender: new package > ?+ cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz missing it's own xrender.pc files? From bwalton at opencsw.org Sat May 22 14:23:11 2010 From: bwalton at opencsw.org (Ben Walton) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 08:23:11 -0400 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cx_libxrender, libxrender In-Reply-To: References: <201005212249.o4LMnCvl016744@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <1274530941-sup-8120@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sat May 22 01:50:36 -0400 2010: > > * cx_libxrender: new package > > ?+ cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > > ?+ cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > missing it's own xrender.pc files? Yes. I thought we'd discussed the the cx_ version would have the devel (.pc and .h) stuff stripped as it's provided by xrender_proto...? Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 From dam at opencsw.org Sun May 23 00:07:45 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 00:07:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libidn Message-ID: <201005222207.o4MM7jtv019665@login.bo.opencsw.org> * libidn: minor version upgrade - from: 1.18,REV=2010.02.16 - to: 1.19,REV=2010.05.22 + libidn-1.19,REV=2010.05.22-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libidn-1.19,REV=2010.05.22-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 23 01:41:22 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 16:41:22 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cx_libxrender, libxrender In-Reply-To: <1274530941-sup-8120@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> References: <201005212249.o4LMnCvl016744@login.bo.opencsw.org> <1274530941-sup-8120@pinkfloyd.chass.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: oops that's right . okay On Saturday, May 22, 2010, Ben Walton wrote: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sat May 22 01:50:36 -0400 2010: > >> > * cx_libxrender: new package >> > ??+ cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> > ??+ cx_libxrender-0.9.5,REV=2010.05.20-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > >> missing it's own xrender.pc files? > > Yes. ?I thought we'd discussed the the cx_ version would have the > devel (.pc and .h) stuff stripped as it's provided by > xrender_proto...? > > Thanks > -Ben > > -- > Ben Walton > Systems Programmer - CHASS > University of Toronto > C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 > > _______________________________________________ > pkgsubmissions mailing list > pkgsubmissions at lists.opencsw.org > https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/pkgsubmissions From rupert at opencsw.org Sun May 23 12:43:09 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 05:43:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs lzip Message-ID: <201005231043.o4NAh9XB008622@login.bo.opencsw.org> * lzip: minor version upgrade - from: 1.9,REV=2010.02.19 - to: 1.10,REV=2010.05.22 + lzip-1.10,REV=2010.05.22-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + lzip-1.10,REV=2010.05.22-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From rupert at opencsw.org Sun May 23 12:56:12 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 05:56:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs lzlib Message-ID: <201005231056.o4NAuC3C006474@login.bo.opencsw.org> * lzlib: major version upgrade - from: 0.9,REV=2010.02.19 - to: 1.0,REV=2010.05.23 + lzlib-1.0,REV=2010.05.23-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + lzlib-1.0,REV=2010.05.23-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From maciej at opencsw.org Mon May 24 16:23:45 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:23:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnupg2, gnupg_agent Message-ID: <201005241423.o4OENjEC022965@login.bo.opencsw.org> * gnupg: patchlevel upgrade - from: 2.0.13,REV=2009.12.12 - to: 2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24 + gnupg2-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + gnupg2-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + gnupg_agent-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + gnupg_agent-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at opencsw.org Tue May 25 04:19:17 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 19:19:17 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libidn In-Reply-To: <201005222207.o4MM7jtv019665@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005222207.o4MM7jtv019665@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: opkay On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * libidn: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.18,REV=2010.02.16 > ?- ? to: 1.19,REV=2010.05.22 > ?+ libidn-1.19,REV=2010.05.22-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libidn-1.19,REV=2010.05.22-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 phil at opencsw.org Tue May 25 04:20:04 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 19:20:04 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs lzip In-Reply-To: <201005231043.o4NAh9XB008622@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005231043.o4NAh9XB008622@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay got this and lzlib On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:43 AM, THURNER Rupert wrote: > * lzip: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 1.9,REV=2010.02.19 > ?- ? to: 1.10,REV=2010.05.22 > ?+ lzip-1.10,REV=2010.05.22-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ lzip-1.10,REV=2010.05.22-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 phil at bolthole.com Tue May 25 04:21:14 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 19:21:14 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs gnupg2, gnupg_agent In-Reply-To: <201005241423.o4OENjEC022965@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005241423.o4OENjEC022965@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Maciej Blizinski wrote: > * gnupg: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 2.0.13,REV=2009.12.12 > ?- ? to: 2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24 > ?+ gnupg2-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnupg2-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnupg_agent-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ gnupg_agent-2.0.15,REV=2010.05.24-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- okay. batched. btw, are you gonna take another crack at xpm? :) I'm trying to figure out if I need to run another "hack job" release myself. From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 25 09:36:09 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:36:09 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libxpm, libxpm_devel, xpm In-Reply-To: References: <201005201152.o4KBq5j2012821@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 21.05.2010 um 22:56 schrieb Philip Brown: > Sigh. this is turning out to be a much more complex target than I > originally advertised to you, Maciej, for which I apologise. > > if you wish to bail on this, please feel free to say so ;-/ but > meanwhile -- Additional issue; > > Due to messed-up but historical naming, "CSWxpm", needs to either > contain the shared libs, or at the minimum, depend on the package that > contains the shared libs. > Your CSWxpm does not depend on CSWlibxpm, that i can see. > (it doesnt technically need it for its own sake, but... > > http://www.opencsw.org/packages/xpm > > has many dependancies. > > > AND... > > our current CSWxpm, ships with both the "cxpm", AND the "sxpm" utils. > sxpm probably does need a depend on CSWlibxpm. (checking.. yup! it > does) > > Hmmm.. howeever, the fact that it didnt get enabled, is my fault. > needs an updated sunx11_devel package. > > I just shipped an updated package for it. Please add the knowledge to the x11-reloaded wiki accordingly. I am already lost on this issue... Best regrads -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 25 16:32:31 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:32:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs balance Message-ID: <201005251432.o4PEWVb2014135@login.bo.opencsw.org> * balance: minor version upgrade - from: 3.42,REV=2009.11.09 - to: 3.52,REV=2010.05.25 + balance-3.52,REV=2010.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + balance-3.52,REV=2010.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 25 16:42:42 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:42:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ncurses, terminfo Message-ID: <201005251442.o4PEgg6U018162@login.bo.opencsw.org> Split off terminfo. * ncurses: revision upgrade - from: 2009.04.06 - to: 2010.05.21 + ncurses-5.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + ncurses-5.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz * terminfo: new package + terminfo-5.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Tue May 25 16:50:40 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:50:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_algorithmannotate, pm_algorithmdiff Message-ID: <201005251450.o4PEoeY5021312@login.bo.opencsw.org> * pm_algorithm: revision upgrade - from: 2009.08.10 - to: 2010.04.10 + pm_algorithmannotate-0.10,REV=2010.04.10-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + pm_algorithmdiff-1.1902,REV=2010.04.10-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 25 18:44:19 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:44:19 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libxpm, libxpm_devel, xpm In-Reply-To: References: <201005201152.o4KBq5j2012821@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 21.05.2010 um 22:56 schrieb Philip Brown: > >> Sigh. this is turning out to be a much more complex target than I >> originally advertised to you, Maciej, for which I apologise. >>..... > > Please add the knowledge to the x11-reloaded wiki accordingly. I am already > lost on this issue... > well, its actually not quite so horrendous to build any more.. my update of sunx11_devel took care of that I think :) The only outstanding issues are all pieces of the same issue: 1. it doesnt make sense to link libXpm.so against libintl or libgettext 2. however, the utilities with it, cxpm and sxpm, do, optionally, use gettext() 3. the autoconfig stuff is somewhat broken in its autodetect of "should I use -lgettext -lintl" The quick-n-easy hack of LIBS=-lintl ./configure isnt quite appropriate, given issue #1. So, the other quick-n-easy hack, is to simply disable use of gettext. The cxpm and sxpm utils are trivial little things that dont have an extreme need for gettext. The errors are all simple, to do with bad (memory/file/color), and they dont even come with gettext locale alternatives. the user would have to make them, themselves. So.. not really worth it! The only real irritation, is that their configure script does not support a clean --disable or --without, for the gettext option. But it can still be done relatively easily, via patching config.h, or possibly other aclocal hacks I'm not familiar with. A secondary irritation, is that they use a non-standard method for defining the results in config.status for this, so providing a clean upstream patch for config* may be challenging. But as I said, the "easy" way out is to just patch config.h after running configure, to not use GETTEXT, and its all good. a one-step fix Feel free to cut-n-paste this into the wiki, if you reaaally think it is beneficial. However, I just did a test build with the "patch config.h", and it went very smoothly. So, its just a matter of who is going to reroll the xpm library? I think it benefits us all if it gets done sooner rather than later. So if no-one does it in a day or so, I'm going to hack together a by-hand release myself to keep the x11-reloaded project moving. From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 25 18:45:19 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:45:19 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs balance In-Reply-To: <201005251432.o4PEWVb2014135@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005251432.o4PEWVb2014135@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * balance: minor version upgrade > ?- from: 3.42,REV=2009.11.09 > ?- ? to: 3.52,REV=2010.05.25 > ?+ balance-3.52,REV=2010.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ balance-3.52,REV=2010.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 25 19:15:15 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:15:15 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ncurses, terminfo In-Reply-To: <201005251442.o4PEgg6U018162@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005251442.o4PEgg6U018162@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Split off terminfo. > > * ncurses: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2009.04.06 > ?- ? to: 2010.05.21 > ?+ ncurses-5.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ ncurses-5.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > * terminfo: new package > ?+ terminfo-5.7,REV=2010.05.21-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > cool, thanks. and in other news... I may have had a break through in name collision detection! more later.... From phil at opencsw.org Tue May 25 19:18:58 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:18:58 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs pm_algorithmannotate, pm_algorithmdiff In-Reply-To: <201005251450.o4PEoeY5021312@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005251450.o4PEoeY5021312@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * pm_algorithm: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2009.08.10 > ?- ? to: 2010.04.10 > ?+ pm_algorithmannotate-0.10,REV=2010.04.10-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ pm_algorithmdiff-1.1902,REV=2010.04.10-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > From skayser at opencsw.org Tue May 25 21:21:14 2010 From: skayser at opencsw.org (Sebastian Kayser) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:21:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs xterm Message-ID: <201005251921.o4PJLEKj020909@login.bo.opencsw.org> This updates xterm to the most recent version and reverts back to using Sun X11 (instead of CSW X11) which became possible again through the updated libXrender. * xterm: major version upgrade - from: 251,REV=2009.11.23 - to: 258,REV=2010.05.25 + xterm-258,REV=2010.05.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + xterm-258,REV=2010.05.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Tue May 25 22:01:27 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:01:27 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs xterm In-Reply-To: <201005251921.o4PJLEKj020909@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005251921.o4PJLEKj020909@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Sebastian Kayser wrote: > This updates xterm to the most recent version and reverts back to > using Sun X11 (instead of CSW X11) which became possible again > through the updated libXrender. > excellent. batched From skayser at opencsw.org Wed May 26 09:47:31 2010 From: skayser at opencsw.org (Sebastian Kayser) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:47:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_boto Message-ID: <201005260747.o4Q7lVj8008907@login.bo.opencsw.org> Required build dependency for the 'unify' package request which came in yesterday. * py_boto: new package + py_boto-1.9b,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From skayser at opencsw.org Wed May 26 09:49:49 2010 From: skayser at opencsw.org (Sebastian Kayser) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:49:49 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_boto In-Reply-To: <201005260747.o4Q7lVj8008907@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005260747.o4Q7lVj8008907@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <4BFCD29D.3010007@opencsw.org> Sebastian Kayser wrote on 26.05.2010 09:47: > Required build dependency for the 'unify' package request which > came in yesterday. s/unify/duplicity/ Sebastian From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 26 10:29:55 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:29:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs help2man Message-ID: <201005260829.o4Q8TtAc019293@login.bo.opencsw.org> * help2man: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.38.1,REV=2010.04.27 - to: 1.38.2,REV=2010.05.26 + help2man-1.38.2,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bonivart at opencsw.org Wed May 26 11:23:41 2010 From: bonivart at opencsw.org (Peter Bonivart) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:23:41 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs (current) memconf Message-ID: memconf-2.14,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz -- /peter From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 26 12:52:31 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:52:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mawk, pbzip2 Message-ID: <201005261052.o4QAqVlq008676@login.bo.opencsw.org> Courtesy update for Benny. * pbzip2: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.1.0,REV=2010.03.16 - to: 1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26 + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz Superfast bytecode-based AWK. * mawk: new package + mawk-1.3.4,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + mawk-1.3.4,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 26 17:45:35 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:45:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libsigc++, libsigc++_devel, libtorren(...) Message-ID: <201005261545.o4QFjZSP011865@login.bo.opencsw.org> libtorrent depends on the updated libsigc++. Please release together. * libtorrent: new package + libtorrent-0.12.6,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libtorrent-0.12.6,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libtorrent_devel-0.12.6,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libtorrent_devel-0.12.6,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz There are no packages depending on glibmmrt, glibmmdevel gtkmmrt, gtkmmdevel I suggest doing the following: - Update libsigc++ and libsigc++devel - Remove libsigc++rt as libraries usually don't have runtime-packages - Remove the following packages as the libraries are not needed for other packages: (or repackage if necessary) - CSWgtkmm2 - CSWgtkmmrt - CSWglibmmrt - CSWglibmmdevel * libsigc++: major version upgrade - from: 1.2.5 - to: 2.2.7,REV=2010.05.26 + libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz * libsigc++_devel: patchlevel upgrade - from: 2.2.3,REV=2008.12.02.2 - to: 2.2.7,REV=2010.05.26 + libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at opencsw.org Wed May 26 18:13:30 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:13:30 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_boto In-Reply-To: <201005260747.o4Q7lVj8008907@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005260747.o4Q7lVj8008907@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Sebastian Kayser wrote: > Required build dependency for the 'unify' package request which > came in yesterday. > > * py_boto: new package > ?+ py_boto-1.9b,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- okies From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 26 18:14:14 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:14:14 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs help2man In-Reply-To: <201005260829.o4Q8TtAc019293@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005260829.o4Q8TtAc019293@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * help2man: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 1.38.1,REV=2010.04.27 > ?- ? to: 1.38.2,REV=2010.05.26 > ?+ help2man-1.38.2,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz From phil at opencsw.org Wed May 26 18:14:49 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:14:49 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs (current) memconf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: okay On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Peter Bonivart wrote: > memconf-2.14,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 26 18:16:14 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:16:14 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mawk, pbzip2 In-Reply-To: <201005261052.o4QAqVlq008676@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005261052.o4QAqVlq008676@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Superfast bytecode-based AWK. > > * mawk: new package > ?+ mawk-1.3.4,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ mawk-1.3.4,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > okay. > Courtesy update for Benny. > > * pbzip2: patchlevel upgrade > - from: 1.1.0,REV=2010.03.16 > - to: 1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26 > + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > erm... what do you mean by "Courtesy", in this case? did he ask you to update it? From dam at opencsw.org Wed May 26 18:19:40 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 18:19:40 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mawk, pbzip2 In-Reply-To: References: <201005261052.o4QAqVlq008676@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: Hi Phil, Am 26.05.2010 um 18:16 schrieb Philip Brown: >> Courtesy update for Benny. >> >> * pbzip2: patchlevel upgrade >> - from: 1.1.0,REV=2010.03.16 >> - to: 1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26 >> + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >> + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > erm... what do you mean by "Courtesy", in this case? did he ask you to > update it? No, but he said it is okay if I update pckages form him while he is busy: > sorry ich war die letzten Wochen etwas land-unter mit neuer > Arbeit und dem drumherum... Ich hab gesehen du hast das Ding > schon neu zusammengeknotet, das is vollkommen ok. Hoffentlich > schaffe ich es die Tage mal wieder etwas zu csw'en. Best regards -- Dago From phil at opencsw.org Wed May 26 18:26:27 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:26:27 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libsigc++, libsigc++_devel, libtorren(...) In-Reply-To: <201005261545.o4QFjZSP011865@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005261545.o4QFjZSP011865@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > libtorrent depends on the updated libsigc++. Please release together. > okay... > I suggest doing the following: > - Update libsigc++ and libsigc++devel > - Remove libsigc++rt as libraries usually don't have runtime-packages agreed. > - Remove the following packages as the libraries are not needed for other packages: > ?(or repackage if necessary) > ?- CSWgtkmm2 > ?- CSWgtkmmrt > ?- CSWglibmmrt > ?- CSWglibmmdevel Eh.. .they were dependancies for "somethin really cool", but I forget what. never got around to building it :( From phil at bolthole.com Wed May 26 18:28:38 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:28:38 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mawk, pbzip2 In-Reply-To: References: <201005261052.o4QAqVlq008676@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 26.05.2010 um 18:16 schrieb Philip Brown: >>> >>> Courtesy update for Benny. >>> >>> * pbzip2: patchlevel upgrade >>> - from: 1.1.0,REV=2010.03.16 >>> - ? to: 1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26 >>> + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz >>> + pbzip2-1.1.1,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz >> >> erm... what do you mean by "Courtesy", in this case? did he ask you to >> update it? > > No, but he said it is okay if I update pckages form him while he is busy: > >> sorry ich war die letzten Wochen etwas land-unter mit neuer >> Arbeit und dem drumherum... Ich hab gesehen du hast das Ding >> schon neu zusammengeknotet, das is vollkommen ok. Hoffentlich >> schaffe ich es die Tage mal wieder etwas zu csw'en. > > okay From skayser at opencsw.org Thu May 27 11:36:24 2010 From: skayser at opencsw.org (Sebastian Kayser) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 11:36:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs iperf Message-ID: <201005270936.o4R9aOMT026446@login.bo.opencsw.org> Internet Protocol bandwidth measuring tool. Iperf was developed by NLANR/DAST as a modern alternative for measuring maximum TCP and UDP bandwidth performance. Iperf allows the tuning of various parameters and UDP characteristics. Iperf reports bandwidth, delay jitter, datagram loss. http://iperf.sourceforge.net/ * iperf: new package + iperf-2.0.4,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + iperf-2.0.4,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From bonivart at opencsw.org Thu May 27 15:54:54 2010 From: bonivart at opencsw.org (Peter Bonivart) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:54:54 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs (current) bind Message-ID: bind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz bind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz bind_chroot-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz bind_devel-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz bind_utils-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz bind_utils-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz libbind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz libbind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- /peter From phil at bolthole.com Thu May 27 18:14:20 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:14:20 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs iperf In-Reply-To: <201005270936.o4R9aOMT026446@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005270936.o4R9aOMT026446@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Sebastian Kayser wrote: > Internet Protocol bandwidth measuring tool. Iperf was developed by > NLANR/DAST as a modern alternative for measuring maximum TCP and UDP > bandwidth performance. Iperf allows the tuning of various parameters > and UDP characteristics. Iperf reports bandwidth, delay jitter, > datagram loss. ? http://iperf.sourceforge.net/ > > * iperf: new package > ?+ iperf-2.0.4,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ iperf-2.0.4,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > From phil at opencsw.org Thu May 27 18:15:15 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] /newpkgs (current) bind In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: okay On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Peter Bonivart wrote: > bind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > bind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > bind_chroot-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > bind_devel-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz > bind_utils-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > bind_utils-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > libbind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > libbind-9.7.0P2,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz From rupert at opencsw.org Thu May 27 22:03:18 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:03:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) Message-ID: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> this version includes also the 2.3 files for upwards compatibility. * openldap: version upgrade - from: 2.3.39,REV=2008.02.22 - to: 2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18 + openldap-2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + openldap-2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + openldap_client-2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + openldap_client-2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + openldap_devel-2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + openldap_rt-2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + openldap_rt-2.4.22,REV=2010.05.18-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at opencsw.org Thu May 27 23:03:22 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:03:22 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) In-Reply-To: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:03 PM, THURNER Rupert wrote: > this version includes also the 2.3 files for upwards compatibility. > cool... although one error: dependancy on both of: P CSWbdb berkeleydb - Stub package as contents moved to CSWbdb47 P CSWbdb48 berkeleydb48 - BerkeleyDB 4.8 embedded database libraries and utiliti PS: new package of lzip, but I didnt notice announce of it? From rupert at opencsw.org Fri May 28 06:12:38 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (THURNER Rupert) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:12:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs ap2_subversion, javasvn, pm_subversio(...) Message-ID: <201005280412.o4S4Cc74018360@login.bo.opencsw.org> * various packages: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.6.9,REV=2010.03.07 - to: 1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27 + ap2_subversion-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + javasvn-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pm_subversion-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + pythonsvn-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + rbsvn-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + subversion-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + subversion_contrib-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + subversion_devel-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + subversion_tools-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.27-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz * various packages: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.6.9,REV=2010.03.07 - to: 1.6.11,REV=2010.05.26 + ap2_subversion-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + javasvn-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + pm_subversion-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + pythonsvn-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + rbsvn-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + subversion-1.6.11,REV=2010.05.26-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 28 15:31:05 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:31:05 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: <490CD501-9C4C-4A4A-82C0-99FD4408E279@opencsw.org> Hi Rupert, Am 27.05.2010 um 23:03 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:03 PM, THURNER Rupert > wrote: >> this version includes also the 2.3 files for upwards compatibility. >> > > cool... although one error: > > dependancy on both of: > > P CSWbdb berkeleydb - Stub package as contents moved to CSWbdb47 > P CSWbdb48 berkeleydb48 - BerkeleyDB 4.8 embedded database libraries > and utiliti > > PS: new package of lzip, but I didnt notice announce of it? And _devel is ARCHALL. This is usually not a good idea as there may be differences between sparc and x86 despite the fact checkpkg recommends using ARCHALL. I suggest making it arch-specific again and overrite checkpkg here. Maciej: It would be nice if checkpkg would stop recommending making _devel ARCHALL. Best regards -- Dago From maciej at opencsw.org Fri May 28 16:41:18 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:41:18 +0100 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) In-Reply-To: <490CD501-9C4C-4A4A-82C0-99FD4408E279@opencsw.org> References: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> <490CD501-9C4C-4A4A-82C0-99FD4408E279@opencsw.org> Message-ID: No dia 28 de Maio de 2010 14:31, Dagobert Michelsen escreveu: > Maciej: It would be nice if checkpkg would stop recommending > making _devel ARCHALL. I considered arguing that the instances where architecture-specific devel packages are necessary, but I understand that the potential cost of debugging a problem caused by a architecture-specific devel package might be substantial. So I've decided to be a complete wuss and comply. r10030 changes the behavior, and locks it down with unit tests. I promise not to do that too often. http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/changeset/10030 As a bonus, checkpkg will now insist on architecture-specific devel packages for non-architecture-specific packages. (A rare case I guess.) Maciej From phil at bolthole.com Fri May 28 17:11:22 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:11:22 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> <490CD501-9C4C-4A4A-82C0-99FD4408E279@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski wrote: > No dia 28 de Maio de 2010 14:31, Dagobert Michelsen escreveu: >> Maciej: It would be nice if checkpkg would stop recommending >> making _devel ARCHALL. > > I considered arguing that the instances where architecture-specific > devel packages are necessary, but I understand that the potential cost > of debugging a problem caused by a architecture-specific devel package > might be substantial. ?So I've decided to be a complete wuss and > comply. ?r10030 changes the behavior, and locks it down with unit > tests. ?I promise not to do that too often. > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/changeset/10030 > > As a bonus, checkpkg will now insist on architecture-specific devel > packages for non-architecture-specific packages. ?(A rare case I > guess.) > how about you just neither recommend nor require one way or another, but just leave it up to the maintainer? From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 28 17:13:06 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:13:06 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> <490CD501-9C4C-4A4A-82C0-99FD4408E279@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <22884AE1-F410-440A-B829-9C66CFF6FFB6@opencsw.org> Hi Phil, Am 28.05.2010 um 17:11 schrieb Philip Brown: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski > wrote: >> No dia 28 de Maio de 2010 14:31, Dagobert Michelsen >> escreveu: >>> Maciej: It would be nice if checkpkg would stop recommending >>> making _devel ARCHALL. >> >> I considered arguing that the instances where architecture-specific >> devel packages are necessary, but I understand that the potential >> cost >> of debugging a problem caused by a architecture-specific devel >> package >> might be substantial. So I've decided to be a complete wuss and >> comply. r10030 changes the behavior, and locks it down with unit >> tests. I promise not to do that too often. >> >> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/changeset/10030 >> >> As a bonus, checkpkg will now insist on architecture-specific devel >> packages for non-architecture-specific packages. (A rare case I >> guess.) > > how about you just neither recommend nor require one way or another, > but just leave it up to the maintainer? If the maintainer insists he can overwrite the check, but I have not seen a package where it would be useful to have ARCHALL. But I have seen many cases where using ARCHALL causes harm. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 28 19:23:07 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 19:23:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libsigc++, libsigc++_devel Message-ID: <201005281723.o4SHN7Vr001585@login.bo.opencsw.org> Added incompatibility from CSWlibsigc++ to CSWsigc++ * libsigc: revision upgrade - from: 2010.05.26 - to: 2010.05.28 + libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz + libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at opencsw.org Fri May 28 19:30:54 2010 From: phil at opencsw.org (Philip Brown) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:30:54 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libsigc++, libsigc++_devel In-Reply-To: <201005281723.o4SHN7Vr001585@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005281723.o4SHN7Vr001585@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: okay On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Added incompatibility from CSWlibsigc++ to CSWsigc++ > > * libsigc: revision upgrade > ?- from: 2010.05.26 > ?- ? to: 2010.05.28 > ?+ libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libsigc++-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ libsigc++_devel-2.2.7,REV=2010.05.28-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz > > -- From rupert at opencsw.org Fri May 28 21:21:36 2010 From: rupert at opencsw.org (rupert THURNER) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 21:21:36 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) In-Reply-To: <22884AE1-F410-440A-B829-9C66CFF6FFB6@opencsw.org> References: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> <490CD501-9C4C-4A4A-82C0-99FD4408E279@opencsw.org> <22884AE1-F410-440A-B829-9C66CFF6FFB6@opencsw.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:13, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 28.05.2010 um 17:11 schrieb Philip Brown: >> >> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski >> wrote: >>> >>> No dia 28 de Maio de 2010 14:31, Dagobert Michelsen >>> escreveu: >>>> >>>> Maciej: It would be nice if checkpkg would stop recommending >>>> making _devel ARCHALL. >>> >>> I considered arguing that the instances where architecture-specific >>> devel packages are necessary, but I understand that the potential cost >>> of debugging a problem caused by a architecture-specific devel package >>> might be substantial. ?So I've decided to be a complete wuss and >>> comply. ?r10030 changes the behavior, and locks it down with unit >>> tests. ?I promise not to do that too often. >>> >>> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/changeset/10030 >>> >>> As a bonus, checkpkg will now insist on architecture-specific devel >>> packages for non-architecture-specific packages. ?(A rare case I >>> guess.) >> >> how about you just neither recommend nor require one way or another, >> but just leave it up to the maintainer? > > If the maintainer insists he can overwrite the check, but I have not > seen a package where it would be useful to have ARCHALL. But I have > seen many cases where using ARCHALL causes harm. > do you have an example? rupert. From dam at opencsw.org Fri May 28 22:39:02 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 22:39:02 +0200 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs openldap, openldap_client, openldap_d(...) In-Reply-To: References: <201005272003.o4RK3I61016646@login.bo.opencsw.org> <490CD501-9C4C-4A4A-82C0-99FD4408E279@opencsw.org> <22884AE1-F410-440A-B829-9C66CFF6FFB6@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <590B3C95-B0E7-40F7-9B0D-F1B2B95E3AE0@opencsw.org> Hi Rupert, Am 28.05.2010 um 21:21 schrieb rupert THURNER: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 17:13, Dagobert Michelsen > wrote: >> If the maintainer insists he can overwrite the check, but I have not >> seen a package where it would be useful to have ARCHALL. But I have >> seen many cases where using ARCHALL causes harm. > > do you have an example? Yes, every package that has architecture-specific files, like 64 bit pkgconfig which resides in sparcv9/amd64 subdirectories. Best regards -- Dago From dam at opencsw.org Sat May 29 22:38:16 2010 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 22:38:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs wdiff Message-ID: <201005292038.o4TKcGEr005197@login.bo.opencsw.org> * wdiff: patchlevel upgrade - from: 0.6.1,REV=2010.04.06 - to: 0.6.2,REV=2010.05.29 + wdiff-0.6.2,REV=2010.05.29-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + wdiff-0.6.2,REV=2010.05.29-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg From phil at bolthole.com Sun May 30 02:26:22 2010 From: phil at bolthole.com (Philip Brown) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 17:26:22 -0700 Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs wdiff In-Reply-To: <201005292038.o4TKcGEr005197@login.bo.opencsw.org> References: <201005292038.o4TKcGEr005197@login.bo.opencsw.org> Message-ID: batched On Saturday, May 29, 2010, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > * wdiff: patchlevel upgrade > ?- from: 0.6.1,REV=2010.04.06 > ?- ? to: 0.6.2,REV=2010.05.29 > ?+ wdiff-0.6.2,REV=2010.05.29-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz > ?+ wdiff-0.6.2,REV=2010.05.29-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 maciej at opencsw.org Mon May 31 21:37:42 2010 From: maciej at opencsw.org (Maciej Blizinski) Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 21:37:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs cups, cupsd, cupsdev, cupsdoc, libcups Message-ID: <201005311937.o4VJbgsx006111@login.bo.opencsw.org> CUPS: Upgrade to 1.4.3. Contains some of my fixes accepted upstream. * cups: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.4.2,REV=2010.02.20 - to: 1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25 + cups-1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + cupsdev-1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + cupsdoc-1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25-SunOS5.9-all-CSW.pkg.gz + libcups-1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + libcups-1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz * cupsd: patchlevel upgrade - from: 1.4.2,REV=2010.03.04 - to: 1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25 + cupsd-1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25-SunOS5.9-i386-CSW.pkg.gz + cupsd-1.4.3,REV=2010.04.25-SunOS5.9-sparc-CSW.pkg.gz -- Generated by submitpkg