This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: strange source packaging?
- From: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
- References: <20020417210033.GB20207@redhat.com>
> Wow. Insightful email.
> 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
It's been a bit of a mess. In my original email to this thread, I
summarized the three packaging styles (I won't call them standards) that are
currently, actually, in use.
That doesn't mean I think having 3 different styles -- only one of which is
actually documented somewhere official -- is a good idea. OTOH, since the
longwinded discussion last November (and its resolution sans an actual
standard), Robert and I (and a few others) have been "standardizing" one way
(which was a compromise in and of itself). So there are only 3 extant
styles, not 47. Which is something.
> I'll just leave the documentation as is so we can have this truly
> delightful conversation again in a couple of months.
Actually, if there's no opposition (hah!) I'll update the documentation to
reflect the current situation (e.g. 3 styles) -- but I'd like to mark one of
them as the preferred style for new packages. Hopefully mine and robert's
> Yeah, yeah. I don't need another 183 line justification message,
> thanks. I've got it.
Chris, in private mail I would've just sent you the one link and I *know*
that would've been sufficient. However, on a public list a little more
info, background, and justification is needed -- if only to forestall the
inevitable hue and cry.
> The wget packaging is just peachy.