Re: [Adopt] Iperf package [2.0.13].

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

Am 07.02.2019 um 14:30 schrieb Battu kaushik:
>   >>so I am wondering if these two requests are related or not.
> Yes, two requests are same. You can prefer my request (As, i have already
> discussed with Bob).
> > > I don't see you listed as a project member
> Now, it has been added.
>
> I have tested on both archs
> x86:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IGKvAqB2Dbditb43RYjZ4js6XSdAmmwb
> x86_64:
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tyvaczV29n5kT3cH_myXTaCoOP6LiRP4
>
> iperf2013.cygport
> <http://cygwin.1069669.n5.nabble.com/file/t11471/iperf2013.cygport>
>
> Thanks,
> Kaushik.

the binary packages have no access permission.

The cygport looks fine, it builds with no issue.
But, IMHO, it should be called just iperf.cygport

Tocal test on 64 bit version works.

From my point of view, you can adopt it, as
Joel Johnson has not answered to the request of feedback.

Please see for next step
https://cygwin.com/package-upload.html

Regards
Marco





---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus