This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: strange source packaging?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:31:04PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>As I recall, the your final word on the matter -- before the thread
>degenerated into yet another "We need an 'install all' option in setup"
>discussion -- was (more or less) "whatever. All these proposals sound
>fine. As long as it makes sense to the maintainer himself":
Wow. Insightful email.
>Since last November, ALL of my packages, and most of Robert's and a few
>others, have been like this:
> foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 contains
> foo-VER.tar.[gz|bz2] -- whatever the upstream folks distribute
> and that's it. I'm even a mildly annoyed when Corinna insists that
>(oldstyle) -src packages MUST unpack into foo-VER-REL/ instead of
>foo-VER/ since MY packages -- as agreed last November -- contain the
>pristine upstream sources. And the upstream maintainers know *nothing*
>about our release numbers.
Well, I guess I haven't been paying much attention to your and Robert's
packages. I'd forgotten that I'd suggested that we package as we see fit
and foolishly looked to what I supposed was the final word on the subject.
I'll just leave the documentation as is so we can have this truly delightful
conversation again in a couple of months.
>If "gzip -dc foo.tar.gz | bzip2 > foo.tar.bz2" is a marginal "is it
>'pristine' or not" case, then
> tar xvzf foo-VER.tar.gz
> mv foo-VER foo-VER-REL
> tar cvjf foo-VER???.tar.bz2(*) foo-VER-REL/
> tar cvjf foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 foo-VER???.tar.bz2 foo-VER-REL.patch
>(*)foo-VER???.tar.bz2 is definitely NOT the pristine source. Its
>internal dirname has changed, as well as the tarball name, and
>compression type. And what the hell do I call it?
>I can't name it 'foo-VER-REL.tar.bz2' because that's the name of the
>I can't call it 'foo-VER.tar.bz2' because then I'll have multiple versions:
> the 'original' upstream one -- unpacks into foo-VER/
> two or three somewhat modified ones, depending on how many releases I
>create: -1's foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-1/, -2's
>foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-2, etc. But, each contains exactly
>the same code.
>I can't call it 'foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2' because that's the name of my
>larger -src tarball, which contains the "pristine"(hah!) tarball +
>.patch and .sh.
>So I leave it foo-VER.tar.[bz2|gz], leave it so that it unpacks into
>foo-VER, just like the upstream folks made it in the first place.
Yeah, yeah. I don't need another 183 line justification message,
thanks. I've got it.
The wget packaging is just peachy.