May Extensions

Forum: The Testing Area
Topic: May Extensions
started by: roberts

Posted by roberts on May 27 2007,19:27
Better late than never. I have been very busy with my move. But here are the extensions that have been submitted. For some reason, I cannot mail out from, so I was not able to send "Thank You" emails like I usually do. So, I will do it here. Thanks J.S. and Mikshaw.

Here is a list of what I just posted into the testing area:

     748919 May 27 11:26 mona_font.uci
     762420 May 27 11:30 elinks.uci
     309927 May 27 11:33 elinks-lite.uci
     211170 May 27 11:36 curl.uci
      31639 May 27 11:38 tmsnc.tar.gz
     197259 May 27 11:42 scansreader.uci
    2918830 May 27 11:48 wings3d.uci
    1735923 May 27 11:55 tcltk-8.4.uci
    2387422 May 27 11:59 imagemagick.uci
      12987 May 27 12:04 dmenu.uci
    1142529 May 27 12:08 zsh.uci
    6079618 May 27 12:15 mplayer-nogui.uci

< >

Posted by mikshaw on May 28 2007,00:41
Please note that wings3d probably won't work without the mesa3d extension. Did I send that to you?
Posted by roberts on May 28 2007,15:41
Quote (mikshaw @ May 27 2007,17:41)
Please note that wings3d probably won't work without the mesa3d extension. Did I send that to you?

No mesa. I processed all that was received. Please send and I will be looking for it..
Posted by jls legalize on May 28 2007,17:25
instead of publishing more extensions, why don't u fix the old mydsls that contains clobbering directoryies, and so crashed the system?
Or maybe u did it already?

legalize cannabis, etc.

Posted by mikshaw on May 28 2007,20:29
It would probably be a better suggestion to make a list of any extensions that were improperly built, then they can be removed from the repository and fixed when someone has the time to do it. I don't think anyone, including robert, is aware of all the specific extensions that need fixin

EDIT: Mesa3D and lighttpd upgrade have been sent

Posted by ke4nt1 on May 29 2007,20:20

Nice to see you back in the forums..


Posted by roberts on May 30 2007,16:24
ke4nt, thanks.

jls and mikshaw, I have found 123 .dsl extensions that do not pass the, i.e, clobber_list > 0. Do I just overwrite all these? Make a new section and ask everyone to test them? Or just post the list and and place the burden on the one who contributed them?

Posted by roberts on May 30 2007,16:26
Mesa3D and lighttpd upgrade have been posted!
Thanks mikshaw.

Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on May 30 2007,18:58
Wow 123... I'm probably guilty for one or more (it's like the extensions are saying to fix these are "as easy as 123").

If it doesn't take much time, it would be faster to post all the declobbered extensions in a new section for testing.  Then you could also post the list, and those who contributed them, if they are available, can check theirs -- and have users who want a declobbered version of certain extension(s) to test them as well.

Posted by mikshaw on May 30 2007,20:06
Wow 123...

Those are the exact words I had planned to begin my reply =o)

My guess is many extensions are simply tgz'ed directories. I can't imagine any other reason for such a huge number.

I wonder, without actually looking at the declobberer, if it is possible to break extensions by using the script? I'm sure there are at least one or two applications that need specific empty directories at runtime (poor coding, I assume?). Would declobbering those extensions kill them? If not, a batch declobber probably wouldn't be a difficult task. If so, I don't know what else to say except good luck =o(

If any of those 123 were my fault, I'll be not unhappy to fix them up. Otherwise I can honestly say I don't care how you approach the problem, considering the only extensions I use that I didn't build myself were made by people I know did them properly (robert, kent, cbagger, clacker...)

Posted by mikshaw on May 31 2007,23:08
I wonder if it's possible to control clobbering in mydsl-install itself, without making it too beefy, slow and complicated. I went through the tar docs and didn't see anything that I thought would help much, but if there was an ownership/permissions  check for each existing file it could theoretically allow extensions to be built simply by tarring a directory. This solution would only be useful imo if it did not add much processing to the install.
Posted by humpty on June 01 2007,02:08
Quote (roberts @ May 30 2007,20:24)
Or just post the list and and place the burden on the one who contributed them?

yea, i would like to see the list too.

Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.