[ITP] tcp_wrappers 7.6

Bryan D. Thomas cinder_bdt@yahoo.com
Fri Apr 14 03:03:00 GMT 2006


Corinna wrote:
> <hint>
> Another iteration of the tcp_wrappers package with a
> shared lib instead of just a static lib would be a
> nice-to-have, too.
> </hint>

cgf wrote:
> How about searching the cygwin web site, i.e., the
> left hand bar under Contributing->Cygwin Packages?

> You seem to be volunteering to be the new package
> maintainer for tcp_wrappers.  That would mean that
> when you make a new release it will be something
> greater than 7.6-3.  That is a given.

Yes, I am attempting to volunteer to be the
Thank you for your patience with my fumblings. Even
when I choose Experimental in setup.exe, I only see
7.6-1.  Also, previous traffic on the list indicated
that the next package would be -2[1]. So, my intention
is to package 7.6-2 which is meant to accomplish these
objectives: a) take on an orphan package[2], b) move
the documentation to /usr/share/{info,doc} in
correspondence with FHS[3], c) help me to be sure I
understand the document to which you directed me

> If you are volunteering to be the maintainer, then
> you will support this package from now on

Yes, though it is a plus that it appears to require
much maintenance (no revision since 2003).  I hope
remains true, so I am submitting -2 as "test" and
waiting on the enhancement suggested by Corinna until
-3 or later.

> and you will have to be subscribed to this mailing
> list (digest is fine).

I commented about digest mode earlier in this thread
because in the document to which you directed me
you) it says "We'd prefer if you read the non-digest
mode since prompt response to packaging issues is a
plus." Also, I find that using my current mail user
agent to respond to individual messages from a digest
is difficult.  When I posted a reply to this thread
previously, I was concerned that I had broken the
thread.  I'm trying very hard to be considerate,
and respectful as I join this community with a
long-standing culture and tangible results.

> You don't need to send a new setup.hint because it
> an existing package  which presumably has a valid
> setup.hint.

In the document to which you directed me (Thank you),
it says "Include a complete setup.hint file as part of
your proposal".  Also, very recently on this list[4],
it was noted that a setup.hint should be included.  Am
I to understand that those who determine GTG will
make the appropriate edits of the setup.hint as
appropriate for the curr, prev, test lines for
packages, but not new ones?

I did add the service SSHD to the setup.hint file
ldesc, because it seemed logical to mention it when
sshd is in the installed hosts.allow.  Since I
modified the file, I thought it prudent to include in
the ITP.  I should have made it explicit in my
previous post that I had changed the setup.hint.

Release 7.6-2 of tcp_wrappers is available for review
at http://sagarmind.net/cygwin-contrib/ (sorry, no


Best Regards,

Referenced articles at:

[1] /5489
[2] /12934
[3] /6190
[4] /13260

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list