From: <WZP...@sp...> - 2008-08-08 18:43:27
|
I don't know about trademarks or such, but whenever I hear of MinGW, I am always reminded of Ming, the evil emperor from the Flash Gordon comic. Ming ruled the planet Mongo. Without Mongo, no Ming. So why not give this installer a more catchy name like Mongo, Mongler, Mingler, Mingetter, GetMing, ... -- Jan Bruun Andersen |
From: Dustin M. <dus...@gm...> - 2008-08-09 05:01:40
|
I like 'mingw-get'. -- Dustin McCartney Chief Technology Officer DAM Entertainment LLC http://www.damentertainment.com |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-08-09 13:02:18
|
Quoting Dustin McCartney <dus...@gm...>: > I like 'mingw-get'. I like it too, I change my vote. So now it is 4 for mingw-get with no votes for anything else. Earnie |
From: John E. / T. <td...@td...> - 2008-08-09 15:09:31
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > Quoting Dustin McCartney <dus...@gm...>: > >> I like 'mingw-get'. >> > > I like it too, I change my vote. So now it is 4 for mingw-get with no > votes for anything else. > No; I still vote for "mingwpkg". With any luck, whatever package manager MinGW ends up with will do much more than just "get" things. -John E. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-08-09 22:25:11
|
On Saturday 09 August 2008 16:09:11 John E. / TDM wrote: > >> I like 'mingw-get'. > >> > > > > I like it too, I change my vote. So now it is 4 for mingw-get with > > no votes for anything else. > > > > No; I still vote for "mingwpkg". With any luck, whatever package > manager MinGW ends up with will do much more than just "get" things. You mean kind of like `apt-get' does just about everything but brew the tea? That's precisely why I suggested `mingw-get'; we would like this tool to be to MinGW what `apt-get' is to those GNU/Linux distributions which use it. Regards, Keith. |
From: John E. / T. <td...@td...> - 2008-08-09 23:06:45
|
Keith Marshall wrote: > On Saturday 09 August 2008 16:09:11 John E. / TDM wrote: > >> No; I still vote for "mingwpkg". With any luck, whatever package >> manager MinGW ends up with will do much more than just "get" things. >> > > You mean kind of like `apt-get' does just about everything but brew the > tea? I don't consider apt-get to be appropriately named either -- but that's beside the point. > That's precisely why I suggested `mingw-get'; we would like this > tool to be to MinGW what `apt-get' is to those GNU/Linux distributions > which use it. > Are you advocating "mingw-get" as the name of the *console-based executable* that performs MinGW package operations, then? That would be fine with me. I would merely prefer "mingwpkg" as the overall package name (the Debian analog of which is simply "apt"). -John E. |
From: Chris W. <ch...@qw...> - 2008-08-10 19:49:32
|
Hi all, On Sat, 9 Aug 2008, John E. / TDM wrote: > >> No; I still vote for "mingwpkg". With any luck, whatever package > >> manager MinGW ends up with will do much more than just "get" things. > > > > That's precisely why I suggested `mingw-get'; we would like this > > tool to be to MinGW what `apt-get' is to those GNU/Linux distributions > > which use it. > > Are you advocating "mingw-get" as the name of the *console-based > executable* that performs MinGW package operations, then? That would be > fine with me. I would merely prefer "mingwpkg" as the overall package > name (the Debian analog of which is simply "apt"). Might I suggest "installer" or "minginst" as possible names for the installer application? Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-08-12 16:24:51
|
Quoting "John E. / TDM" <td...@td...>: > I would merely prefer "mingwpkg" as the overall package > name (the Debian analog of which is simply "apt"). > It's your package, Keith is mingwpkg good. It will create the mingwpkg directory in 24 hours. Earnie |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-08-12 21:57:31
|
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 17:24:42 Earnie Boyd wrote: > > I would merely prefer "mingwpkg" as the overall package > > name (the Debian analog of which is simply "apt"). > > It's your package, Keith is mingwpkg good. I still lean towards `mingw-get', exploiting the analogy with `apt-get', (although that may be lost on those unfamiliar with Linux). Let's not forget that `get' has another meaning, besides merely acquisition; in this case: - A tool to get dependencies resolved; - A tool to get packages downloaded; - A tool to get packages installed; - A tool to get packages configured; and even: - A tool to get packages uninstalled. (In short, a package manager; a tool to get things done with packages). However, I would not keep the `apt-get' analogy so strict as to make `mingw-get' a command line tool; I would give it a GUI, encapsulating the full gamut of its functionality. `mingwpkg' would be my second choice, again with a GUI encapsulating its functionality. If John is going to take the lead in developing this, then I defer to his preference. Regards, Keith. |
From: John E. / T. <td...@td...> - 2008-08-12 22:08:50
|
Keith Marshall wrote: > I still lean towards `mingw-get', exploiting the analogy with `apt-get', > (although that may be lost on those unfamiliar with Linux). Let's not > forget that `get' has another meaning, besides merely acquisition; in > this case: > > - A tool to get dependencies resolved; > - A tool to get packages downloaded; > - A tool to get packages installed; > - A tool to get packages configured; > > and even: > > - A tool to get packages uninstalled. > > (In short, a package manager; a tool to get things done with packages). > However, I would not keep the `apt-get' analogy so strict as to make > `mingw-get' a command line tool; I would give it a GUI, encapsulating > the full gamut of its functionality. > Your argument is convincing; I find "mingw-get" more appropriate the more I think about it. Consider it decided. -John E. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-08-13 11:46:32
|
Quoting "John E. / TDM" <td...@td...>: > > Your argument is convincing; I find "mingw-get" more appropriate the > more I think about it. Consider it decided. > Done. You may now import to mingw-get. Earnie |
From: John E. / T. <td...@td...> - 2008-08-13 13:38:46
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > Done. You may now import to mingw-get. > What would you like imported: the NSIS installer I proposed or the Synaptic-like design I've now begun? (Or both?) -John E. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-08-14 14:53:09
|
Quoting "John E. / TDM" <td...@td...>: > Earnie Boyd wrote: >> Done. You may now import to mingw-get. >> > > What would you like imported: the NSIS installer I proposed or the > Synaptic-like design I've now begun? (Or both?) > I think both, Keith do you agree? Earnie |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-08-14 22:31:22
Attachments:
mingw-get-0.0-wx-src.tar.gz
|
On Thursday 14 August 2008 15:53:02 Earnie Boyd wrote: > Quoting "John E. / TDM" <td...@td...>: > > Earnie Boyd wrote: > >> Done. You may now import to mingw-get. > > > > What would you like imported: the NSIS installer I proposed or the > > Synaptic-like design I've now begun? (Or both?) > > I think both, Keith do you agree? Yes, although I wonder if the mingw-get module should be kept for the synaptic like design, with the NSIS code on the development branch of the current installer packages? I don't know if the wxWidgets based code I put together for a Synaptic like UI is of interest? I embarked on it primarily as a learning and evaluation exercise on wx, rather than as a serious attempt to create a MinGW package manager. If it's of any use, the source is attached; it uses XML to define the package hierarchy, and currently does no more than lay out the UI. Do note that my design allows individual packages to be associated with any number of arbitrary `package groups' in the tree view; e.g. `mingw-runtime' appears in the `Libraries' group, in addition to `Base System / MinGW Compiler Suite'. Regards, Keith. |
From: <td...@td...> - 2008-08-14 23:19:26
|
Quoting Keith Marshall <kei...@us...>: > On Thursday 14 August 2008 15:53:02 Earnie Boyd wrote: >> Quoting "John E. / TDM" <td...@td...>: >> > What would you like imported: the NSIS installer I proposed or the >> > Synaptic-like design I've now begun? (Or both?) >> >> I think both, Keith do you agree? > > Yes, although I wonder if the mingw-get module should be kept for the > synaptic like design, with the NSIS code on the development branch of > the current installer packages? That works for me; I should be able to upload in about 3-4 hours. Unless someone says otherwise, I'll merge the "MinGW" directory's main branch (which I believe Cesar used to create the most recent release) into the MinGW-5_1 branch, then delete all files and subdirectories in "MinGW" in the main branch and add my own NSIS-based tree. Then I'll add my current Synaptic-like code in "mingw-get" in the main branch. > I don't know if the wxWidgets based code I put together for a Synaptic > like UI is of interest? I embarked on it primarily as a learning and > evaluation exercise on wx, rather than as a serious attempt to create a > MinGW package manager. If it's of any use, the source is attached; it > uses XML to define the package hierarchy, and currently does no more > than lay out the UI. Do note that my design allows individual packages > to be associated with any number of arbitrary `package groups' in the > tree view; e.g. `mingw-runtime' appears in the `Libraries' group, in > addition to `Base System / MinGW Compiler Suite'. Laying out the UI is about as far as I've gotten on the new design on my end, as well. All of the GUI layers I evaluated (wxWidgets among them) added a megabyte or more to the final executable size (with -Os and -s), so I decided to go with pure CRT+Win32 in C and C++ for now -- the final product would probably be in the 200KB range. I will certainly use your code for inspiration. -John E. |
From: John E. / T. <td...@td...> - 2008-08-15 02:52:01
|
td...@td... wrote: > Unless someone says otherwise, I'll merge the "MinGW" directory's main > branch (which I believe Cesar used to create the most recent release) > into the MinGW-5_1 branch, then delete all files and subdirectories in > "MinGW" in the main branch and add my own NSIS-based tree. CVS says otherwise. (I don't have "sufficient Karma"). mingw-get has now been imported, however. -John E. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-08-15 06:03:08
|
On Friday 15 August 2008 03:51:44 John E. / TDM wrote: > CVS says otherwise. (I don't have "sufficient Karma"). You should have, now. Regards, Keith. |
From: John E. / T. <td...@td...> - 2008-08-15 14:07:21
|
Keith Marshall wrote: > On Friday 15 August 2008 03:51:44 John E. / TDM wrote: > >> CVS says otherwise. (I don't have "sufficient Karma"). >> > > You should have, now. > Thanks -- uploaded. -John E. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-08-08 20:39:43
|
Quoting WZP...@sp...: > I don't know about trademarks or such, but whenever I hear of MinGW, I am > always reminded of Ming, the evil emperor from the Flash Gordon comic. Ming > ruled the planet Mongo. Without Mongo, no Ming. So why not give this > installer a more catchy name like Mongo, Mongler, Mingler, Mingetter, > GetMing, ... > There are reasons we don't want to drop the W from the MinGW. While GetMinGW works MinGWetter doesn't ;p. [x]mingwPKG [ ]mingwpkg [ ]MinGWpkg [ ]GetMingw [ ]GetMinGW I've x'ed my preference, what is yours. I'll create a directory Monday EDT. Earnie |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-08-08 22:51:04
|
On Friday 08 August 2008 21:39:37 Earnie Boyd wrote: > why not give this > > > installer a more catchy name like Mongo, Mongler, Mingler, > > Mingetter, GetMing, ... I first thought mpkg, because it is short and snappy; it suffers, it seems, from potential for confusion with the same name used elsewhere. mongo appeals, for similar reason, but may suffer from lack of any apparent sense of identification with MinGW; it also probably fails to convey a sense of purpose, (although that may not be particularly uncommon, when choosing project names). > There are reasons we don't want to drop the W from the MinGW. Although RMS might be a happier bunny, if we did so... > While GetMinGW works MinGWetter doesn't ;p. > > [x]mingwPKG > [ ]mingwpkg > [ ]MinGWpkg > [ ]GetMingw > [ ]GetMinGW > > I've x'ed my preference, what is yours. I dislike mixed case names in general; (stems from working mostly with a system which is strictly case sensitive). If we are going to have it, then I think we should preserve correct capitalisation of `MinGW', so, of the above that would leave `MinGWpkg' or 'GetMinGW'. Alternatively, how's about `mingw-get' -- our own variation on `apt-get' if you will? Regards, Keith. |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2008-08-09 00:16:33
|
On 2008-08-08 22:50Z, Keith Marshall wrote: > On Friday 08 August 2008 21:39:37 Earnie Boyd wrote: >> >> [x]mingwPKG >> [ ]mingwpkg >> [ ]MinGWpkg >> [ ]GetMingw >> [ ]GetMinGW [...] > Alternatively, how's about `mingw-get' -- our own variation on `apt-get' > if you will? 'mingw-get' seems the most natural to me. |
From: Stephen L. <sld...@so...> - 2008-08-09 04:41:35
|
Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: > > There are reasons we don't want to drop the W from the MinGW. While > GetMinGW works MinGWetter doesn't ;p. > > [x]mingwPKG > [ ]mingwpkg > [ ]MinGWpkg Is this just the name, or the file extension for the packages? Although I don't feel keeping it to 3 characters is absolutely necessary, 8 characters for a file extension is a bit clumsy. (package names are already long enough with name-version-subversion-release-architecture-os etc.) How about something like these? .mgw .mpm (think .rpm) .mwpkg (still long IMO) .mw (unless we don't want to conflict with MacWrite files :) ) -- Stephen Lee <sld...@so...> |
From: JonY <10...@gm...> - 2008-08-09 05:01:19
|
Stephen Lee wrote: > Earnie Boyd<ea...@us...> wrote: >> There are reasons we don't want to drop the W from the MinGW. While >> GetMinGW works MinGWetter doesn't ;p. >> >> [x]mingwPKG >> [ ]mingwpkg >> [ ]MinGWpkg > > Is this just the name, or the file extension for the packages? > > Although I don't feel keeping it to 3 characters is absolutely > necessary, 8 characters for a file extension is a bit clumsy. > (package names are already long enough with > name-version-subversion-release-architecture-os etc.) > > How about something like these? > > .mgw > .mpm (think .rpm) > .mwpkg (still long IMO) > .mw (unless we don't want to conflict with MacWrite files :) ) > Earnie wrote about naming the package manager. I suggest something simple, just keep the file extension from whatever that packed it, eg .tar.bz2, .lzma and etc. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-08-09 08:24:19
|
On Saturday 09 August 2008 05:41:23 Stephen Lee wrote: > Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: > > There are reasons we don't want to drop the W from the MinGW. > > While GetMinGW works MinGWetter doesn't ;p. > > > > [x]mingwPKG > > [ ]mingwpkg > > [ ]MinGWpkg > > Is this just the name, or the file extension for the packages? In this context, we are discussing the choice of name for the package manager/installer; in the past, it has just been called `MinGW', but that becomes confusing when reporting bugs -- telling us you use `MinGW-5.1.3' doesn't convey any useful information, unless it's a bug in the installer itself you are reporting. What we really need is the version number of the package which actually exhibits the bug; our objective in considering a new name for the installer, is to hopefully make this distinction clearer. Naming of packages themselves is a different issue. There was a discussion of that on MinGW-Dvlpr a few months ago, (around March/April IIRC). The purpose of that was to rationalise the conventions we use in naming our packages, to maintain a more consistent structure:-- name-version-subsystem-status-class.format That discussion has not yet been finalised; there is an outstanding action on me to write up a formal specification for approval, but outside issues have delayed that. The gist of it is:-- 1) Existing package names will remain unchanged; (SourceForge makes it virtually impossible for us to change them). 2) New packages will be named in accordance with the specification, once it is ratified, (by final consensus here, on this list). 3) Packages will be provided in predominantly .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 or .tar.lzma formats; these determine the `format' element, (and hence the final extension), of the package name. Regards, Keith. |
From: Stephen L. <sld...@so...> - 2008-08-09 22:24:19
|
Keith Marshall <kei...@us...> wrote: > > > Is this just the name, or the file extension for the packages? > > In this context, we are discussing the choice of name for the package > manager/installer [...] Thanks for the explanation. Stephen -- Stephen Lee <sld...@so...> |