This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Proposal: psutils (again)
I got my source archive from a server in France, but I just noticed,
that the author's "original" site is up again:
Here you can download the source, and it does *not* contain the
Makefile. You probably have the Debian patched version. Maybe the
Debian-patch cannot be reversed :)
"cmp" tells me that the source I used is the original version.
Volker Quetschke wrote:
Well, beside the fact that you don't provide a patch to restore the
original source archive. This is the main (?) reason to provide the
patch, it is there to get back the official sources.
Grr @!%$, forgot to put it into the source archive again :) Fixed.
The original source archive contains a Makefile, which you removed.
No, mine doesn't. The original download site for psutils seems to be
down for the past few days, so I got the source from a mirror. It did
not contain a file named Makefile. Does your's?
Yes, it does ;-). I got the sources from:
<http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/psutils.html>, there I found
BTW, My first release of the source package contained a Makefile
which I removed, because *you* (spotlight on :-) said it was *not* in
the original source.
That was a misunderstanding, as "my" unpatched sources had a
Makefile (that was different from your Makefile) I thought you
You also added the CYGWIN-PATCHES dir (This is good, but it's not
in the original sources.
http://cygwin.com/setup.html told me to. Isn't this the usual way to
include Cygwin-specific stuff?
It is the correct way.
I attached a patch that IMHO does it right. I also "modified" the
already present $(prefix) variable that you now can do:
Looks good. I modified the Makefile.unix and README accordingly.
Fine, :-) I'll have a look later today. Can you give me a link where you
found "your" original psutils_1.17 sources.