This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Robots binary package

From: Jonathan Kamens <jik at curl dot com>
To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
Date: 28 Dec 2001 13:12:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Robots binary package
References: <05bb01c18f64$5f3142d0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <20011228114125.M27340@cygbert.vinschen.de> <065901c18f8d$05f2e650$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <3C2C8729.91EDD8C6@yahoo.com> <20011228154829.16845.qmail@lizard.curl.com> <20011228181032.GA31028@redhat.com>

>  Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:10:32 -0500
>  From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
>  
>  I've never thought about this before but it makes no sense to me to have
>  rebuild instructions in the binary package.

I don't have a problem with putting the rebuild instructions in the
source package rather than the binary package.  What I have a problem
with is saying that there's no requirement to provide rebuild
instructions *at all*.

Perhaps we need to agree on a standard location where the rebuild
instructions will go in the source package, update the Web page to
document that location, and put instructions in that location from now
on when building new or upgraded packages.

  jik

References:
- Robots binary package
  - From: Robert Collins
- Re: Robots binary package
  - From: Corinna Vinschen
- Re: Robots binary package
  - From: Robert Collins
- Re: Robots binary package
  - From: Earnie Boyd
- Re: Robots binary package
  - From: Jonathan Kamens
- Re: Robots binary package
  - From: Christopher Faylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]