This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 12:39:51AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote
> >>You've stated several times that you're looking only at "baby 
> >>steps" -- but 
> >>I think baby steps are counterproductive here.  Imagine a 
> >>
> > 
> > I agree in principle. The issues I percieve is that
> > 1) setup.exe isn't ready for more than bare bones changes - regardless
> > of rpm or dpkg inspiration.


I would prefer to keep it simple.  And since we already have seen
implementations of rpm for Cygwin (regardless of the "replace
DLL/EXE while running" problem) I would propose the rpm way which
would easily fit in our current packaging scheme.

- setup.exe creates the /usr/src/cygwin directory and it's subdirs

- Our current tar.bz2/tar.gz source packages are copied on demand into
  /usr/src/cygwin/SOURCES.  They will not extracted in future.

- New packages or new versions of existing packages could choose to
  repack as genuine .tar.[bg]z* file (using the already existing naming
  convention plus a patch file which is
  called package-<version>-<cygwin subversion>.dif

- If a package maintainer likes, he can choose to add a 
  package-<version>-<cygwin subversion>.spec file to the directory
  which then will be copied to /usr/src/cygwin/SPECS.

That's all.  And that's everything which should be done by setup, IMO.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                      
Red Hat, Inc.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]