This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [Review - Not yet] tcm
1) yes, my changes are very likely to be integrated into the original
TCM distribution (most are in fact already included there).
2) I created a build script now and rebuilt the source and binary
packages, available from the usual URLs
The latest official TCM source (2.20) already contains lots of my
changes (#if'ed where necessary). The reason for patch to this source is
mostly to make it conform to the cygwin packaging-rules (and some
general bug fixes). The reason for the huge size of the patch (400k)
was, that the original source is not "clean" (because some
yacc-generated files are contained in the archive that are removed by
"make clean"). I changed this manually and the new patch is only 93k
BTW: The binary package has also been available from the TCM download
page at http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~tcm/ since January and now makes
approx. 30% of all binary downloads!
Harold L Hunt II wrote:
I just reviewed your tcm package:
Package: tcm 2.20-1 [2003-01-27]
Description: Toolkit for Conceptual Modeling (TCM)
Proposer: Daniel Boesswetter
Good to go: Charles Wilson (cygwin-apps-thread.11851) (once problems
Problems: So, here's the question for the list. For the
cygwin-specific README in a X-related package, where should it go?
Status: Attained required 3 votes. Package available. Reviewed.
HOLD-UPS: Unresolved minor problems.
1) You have made a lot of changes. Is there any chance that these
patches will be excepted into the upstream tcm package? I'm a little
nervous having this many changes in place that aren't properly #if'd
since the next upstream release might not have all of this stuff and
the packge will become unmaintained unless you are around to get those
patches adapted for the next version.
2) There is no build script. I know that packages without build
scripts are still allowed, and I used to make them myself since I
thought they were really tough... but now they save me so much time
that I won't release a package without them and I shy away from
reviewing a package that doesn't have one. If you don't want to make
the script, then I could make it for you (after you tell me what you
are going to do regarding all the changes in #1).
Awaiting your input,