This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Robert Collins" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > It's got what I was meaning in all those discussion. If you could
> > up for comparison with your 1st and 2nd style tarballs that'd be
> Okay, it's up there.
> But it isn't a FULL example. You didn't modify the
> CYGWIN-PATCHES/mktemp.README file to reflect *your* building style.
> didn't change CYGWIN-PATCHES/mktemp-1.3.1-1.sh to reflect the way
> think the build procedure should work. Both files still refer to
> like /usr/doc/cygwin/SOURCES and /usr/doc/cygwin/BUILD etc.
Which is fine, because I've been keeping out of that part of the
> You merely changed the name of the internal tarball slightly.
Correct, because it should have been the vendors tarball as is.
> I want to see a REAL, FULL example of your idea, as integrated with
> setup's *current* capabilities. I *thought* that my -style2 did that.
> You left my -style2 shell script as is, but changed just enough in the
> package structure so that the script doesn't work. You changed a
> of the README but it still isn't a completely accurate representation
> *your* structure.
I didn't realise I'd altered the README. Oops. I've been maintaining
that what I'm talking about is orthogonal to the package building at
this point. However I've updated the script & readme to use the
structure I have in the tarball. I've also mailed you another style3
tarball... built via 'mktemp-1.3.1-1.sh all'
> Also, if the -src tarball is going to contain mktemp-1.3.1-1.patch,
> the src tarball should be named mktemp-1.3.1-1-src.tar.bz2, NOT
> mktemp-1.3.1-src.tar.bz2. Otherwise, how will you differentiate it
> the -src tarball that contains mktemp-1.3.1-2.patch?
The outer tarball is named that isn't it? Or did I label it badly when I
sent it to you. ...
looks like I named it badly. Yes the -src tarball should be