This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] Questions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:57:14AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>3) If a package needs a specific tool to build it, such as asciidoc being needed for
>>> git documentation, does it also need to be supported or not? if so does it need
>>> to be bundled with the source, or as a separate package?
>>In general, we like the ability to reproduce a build using cygwin
>>packages. This has not always been the case, but cygwin is now
>>self-sustaining enough that you can rebuild almost all cygwin packages
>>using just cygwin (cross-compiling would be hands down faster, but it is
>>the principle of the thing). I would consider proposing asciidoc as a
>>separate package, again because it might prove useful outside of git.
> Ok. I'll set it up as a separate package.
> I was thinking about the current distro method, its probably a stupid
> question, but i was wondering why don't you support, or have tools to convert
> rpm/dpkg type build packages? Cygwin seems to have native rpm & dpkg tools and
> most source packages have a 'dist' type target...
Leaving aside the SHTDI issue that has already been discussed, I'm not
sure this would be as useful as it sounds.
The generic-build-script does quite a few little things like
autoinstalling certain doc files, helping out with pre/postinstall
scripts, providing default configure args to put files in the standard
Cygwin places. All of which would be missed out if you used the
package's own idea of how to package things.
The main configure/make/install buildsystem of a package is often better
maintained than bundled RPM specfiles, etc.
Also, as far as Cygwin's rpm/dpkg tools go: dpkg is maintainerless and
slated for removal, and current upstream versions of RPM die before
entering main(), when compiled on Cygwin.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----