hi, there!

08 Jan 03 17:12, Stas Degteff wrote to Max Khon:

 MK>> (this message was originally posted to husky-discuss{at} but people
 MK>> pointed me to this echoarea)

 MK>> Most husky modules install man pages, .html and .info files
 MK>> using `install' without any arguments. As a result installed files 
 MK>> have x ('execute') bit set in permissions.
 MK>> Will this be fixed?
 MK>> I can provide patches for most modules that are published on 
 MK>> sourceforge.

 SD> Make pathes and send to me please (over fidonet or email:g%ural.org 
 SD> in binary/uuencoded form)

which e-mail?

 SD> Good idea is are construct makefiles like one template, for example 
 SD> see husky-current fidoconf/doc/Makefile or fidoconf/doc/makefile.unx:

 SD> INFODIR = /usr/local/info
 SD> IMOPT   = -m 644
 SD> ....
 SD>     install $(IMOPT) fidoconfig.info ${INFODIR}


 MK>> Another question is: will huskybse and msged be distributed via
 MK>> sourceforge any time soon?

 SD> Yes. But these modules don't changed in -stable branch and updated 
 SD> only in
 SD> -current branch for compatibility with updated smapi-2.3.-current

They are missing on sourceforge download sites.

 MK>> By the way I have just committed FreeBSD ports for the following

 SD> Very good! (I have too low time for this)

 MK>> Husky Fidosoft Project modules (I have taken latest -stable release
 MK>> from sourceforge):

 MK>> - bsopack-0.2.2-1
 SD>  ...
 MK>> - sqpack-1.2.3-1

 SD> Please use *.2-release or later version.

sorry, cannot understand you here. Can you specify tarball names?
Isn't sqpack-1.2.3-1 a *.2-release version?

 MK>> I plan to maintain these ports in future and I wonder whether there 
 MK>> exists some mailing list on which announcements are made about new 
 MK>> stable releases of Husky Fidosoft Project modules?

 SD> 1. echomail conferences fidosoft.husky (international) and (russian, 
 SD> cp866)
 SD> ru.husky
 SD> 2. husky project page on sf.net, "news" section

 MK>> The last question is why source-only tarballs that are distributed
 MK>> from sourceforge have such strange version naming?

 SD> See huskybse/develop-doc for details.
 SD> Short description for CVS tags:
 SD> module-N_M_K-branch
 SD> where
 SD>     module - module name, e.g. fidoconfig, smapi, hpt, ...
 SD>     N      - Major version number
 SD>     M      - Minor version number
 SD>     K      - Patch level number
 SD>     branch - branch or release name: "current",
"stable" or "release"

 SD> This tag pointed to version named "module N.M.K-branch"

This is description of CVS tags. I'd be happy if tarballs were named
like CVS tags (they always were named so previously).
But tarballs with source code that are distributed from sourceforge are named
differently -- they do not have "current", "stable" or
"release"
suffixes. They have a number there.

Tarballs that can be downloaded from old husky page have current/stable/release
suffixes (and always had them IIRC), but tarballs that
a distributed from sourceforge does not. Please take a look at this directtory
listing (as an example):

http://easynews.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/husky/

/fjoe

--- Msged/BSD 6.0.1