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]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: patches to vendor source trees - discussion

My 2-bits, for what it's worth...

I like the idea of having one pristine source tarball, plus a
PKG-VER-REL specific patch file(s). For downloading. This means changes
from one release to the next don't require downloading another large-ish
source tarball, but simply a (hopefully) smaller patch file.

Once downloaded, I think the process (whether automated or
human-driven-but-well-documented) should end up creating a PKG-VER-REL
directory for the patched source. This makes it easy to hack at it,
build it (either in a sub-dir or separately), and still start fresh when
the next Cygwin-REL patch is downloaded.

Regarding automated vs human-driven, I'd vote for as fully automated as
possible. But the people that are interested in grabbing source and
hacking at it should be capable of following directions also, as long as
they are easy to find.

Regarding where in the source package to keep a .README file, I think it
should be up to each package maintainer. There should be a "standard"
suggestion, in case they don't already have something else in place
(e.g. CYGWIN-PATCHES). However, for those upstream sources that already
have a place to keep system-specific files (in my case,
curl-7.9.1-1/packages/Win32/cygwin) that should be the right place. The
best way to FIND this .README file would be to look in the binary distro
for usr/doc/Cygwin/pkg-ver-rel.README, which should document the
non-standard place where the master copy is located...


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