This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: package proposal update: suite3270
- From: "Peter A. Castro" <doctor at fruitbat dot org>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:26:37 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: package proposal update: suite3270
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 05:17:29PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > http://www.fruitbat.org/Cygwin/suite3270/setup.hint.suite3270
> > >
> > > The requires line uses the wrong package names. The leading "suite3270-"
> > > is missing. Besides that, if the base package already requires to
> > > download all other packages, the split would be unneeded. Did you
> > > actually intend that?
> > Ok, I knew there would be some confusion concerning this. Here's the
> > rational: The package "suite3270" is actually a super-package (Hmmm...
> > [...]
> > I'd changed the package names to prefix with 'suite3270-' to group them
> > togther, to make them easier to find, but perhaps that wasn't a good idea
> > after all. You can install each product independent of each other.
> But that's not the problem.
So, the real problem is the super-package concept?
> > So, why isn't the source for each product with each package, you ask?
> I never asked this. This is a good thing, IMHO.
Sorry, I was trying to anticipate the next question. :)
> > So, why the "-common" package, you ask? As I said, each product is
> > independent of each other. However, they all (except pr3287) install
> > some common files, which, if you installed the individually would overlay
> > each other, and upon removal of one package would remove those common
> > files for all. So, the build process moves those files which are
> > identical (common) into a separate package which is prereq'ed by each
> > package. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
> It's still a good idea. I just don't think the super-package idea is
> a good one. What do we have? 5 packages with a common set of files.
> So why not keep the common files together in the base package, which
> then is not a *super* package but just the container for the common
> files and the name and container of the source package.
Ok, suppose I eliminate the super-package and use the common one as the
base package. Should it be named "suite3270" or "suite3270-common" ?
I'm leaning towards "suite3270".
> > > Another nit concerning the documentation. Each package creates its own
> > > documentation subdirectory right below /usr/doc. So after installing
> > > all packages, you have
> > >
> > > /usr/doc/suite3270-3.2.20 -- empty!
> > > /usr/doc/suite3270-common-3.2.20 -- empty!
> > > /usr/doc/c3270-3.2.20/
> > > /usr/doc/pr3287-3.2.20/
> > > etc.
> > (*sigh*) ... and correct the directory names, but this is starting to get
> > out of hand. I'm starting to think that naming the packages with a
> > prefix was a bad idea. Perhaps having them grouped together by name
> > isn't all that helpful.
> I don't think so. Grouping them together using the suite3270 prefix
> is a good idea, IMHO.
> > > I would prefer to keep all documentation in one subdirectory
> > >
> > > /usr/share/doc/suite3270-...
> > > and all the above subdirectories below that, instead of polluting the
> > > doc directory itself with so many subdirs for one base package.
> > >
> > > I would also prefer to have only one common README file under
> > > /usr/share/doc/Cygwin. Basically all these READMEs are the same, with
> > > just tiny differences. Why not just one file which describes the
> > > whole suite?
> > Hmmm... Well, since it's a requirement for each package to have a README,
> This is a rule of thumb, not a slavish one. The package is "the suite
> of 3270 emulators". Put one README in the base package and you're done.
Ok, I can do that. One readme under the name "suite3270" which contains
info for all the emulators.
> > I though it necessary to create a separate doc dir & README for each one.
> Just don't take the rule too literally.
Sorry, it seemed like a reqirement, not a rule.
> > See, I'm still working under the assumption that each emulator package is
> > independent of the other (expect for -common) and as such should be
> But independence of binary packages don't mean they are entirely
> independent products. They share a common purpose and as such they
> will be treated by us dumb folks.
> Btw., I tried a test of the binary c3270.exe. From the man page I
> got the impression, the emulator should be able to connect to any
> telnet server. I don't have a OS/390 machine handy so I used the
> telnet server on Cygwin to connect to. But it fails. It connects
> and it shows a login prompt. Then the password is requested by login(1),
> the same as running a standard telnet session. But for some reason
> I'm always getting a "Login incorrect" message. When connecting with
> a normal telnet client, I can login, so I don't quite understand how
> this is supposed to work. Any hint?
I'll look into it. It might be sending an extra CR/LF with the password.
Peter A. Castro <firstname.lastname@example.org> or <Peter.Castro@oracle.com>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood