Re: cygwin-pkg-maint maintance: round 2

[Marco Atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>]

On 14/08/2014 22:47, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Marco Atzeri writes:

> Ultimately the need for this file should go away except for
> bootstrapping a new maintainer.

I guess we will always need a maintainer database

> > I plan to produce a list of sources by arch as by product of
> > the current analysis.

here it is including the crude python (*) script I am using:
http://matzeri.altervista.org/works/check_maint/

http://matzeri.altervista.org/works/check_maint/pkg_arch.txt

Attached the mismatch between 32 bit and 64 bit filtered by

$ grep -v -e "cygwin\|perl\|Both" pkg_arch.txt  |tee pkg_mismatch.txt

to remove the cross-package and the perl subpackages that
are the major part of the virtual mismatch.

They are around 100 but some are in reality obsoleted as
rxvt and aewm++ that are dead upstream, and some are
virtual mismatches.


> Long term: You enter a new maintainer manually and when the package is
> finally uploaded an extended setup.hint provides all the information
> that goes into the package database to fill the temporary blanks.  And
> with a little bit of extra effort each package could eben be checked for
> (formal) correctness.

big dream ;-)

For the time being I suggest to focus on the mismatches and see
which programs should be buried as obsolete and which are worth
to be ported on 64bit.


> Regards,
> Achim.

*) my real job is not in software, and writing a program every
   2-3 year  is a very good way to continuously loose practice
   and relearn a language...

Attachment: pkg_mismatch.txt
Description: Text document