This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1
- From: Jussi Kantola <jussi dot kantola at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:18:35 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ITP] astrometry.net-0.38-1
- References: <CAH7za-Bv7D84wjExfGe_Y7oYGSwq=Q61OGjq7J3wP56i_OcwBA@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAH7za-Bw8ppYPwQkvxo03Q4dmi0vPo3qEMJJz+2EwaO25n8firstname.lastname@example.org> <4E8F0AA2.email@example.com> <CAH7za-BpsVVDPoLHVHC+o40pFjPEATMv_sL=tu7zPAd1kB7uGg@mail.gmail.com> <4EB3865A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4EB45567.email@example.com>
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> You should probably do that, to ensure that the build procedure works on
> your machine. Also, to test the resuts; I have no idea how to use this
It builds fine, and the resulting installation works fine when I put
some sky catalogs in /usr/share/astrometry/data/. The question
becomes, would it be better to create a separate package
(astrometry.net-data-tycho or such) for the (example/test) catalogs,
than to have them in the binary/source packages? Theoretically, and I
suppose in eventual actuality as well, there could be many different
sets of catalogs, so separate packaging sounds like the way to go ...
> Provided you can rebuild this package on your machine, AND that it actually
> works, consider it GTG.
With the notice/question above, it worked like a charm -- and I thank