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

As a not a maintainer quite yet - Might put my comment forth anyway...

I am closer to favouring 1 then 3 ... and not 2 ...
but neither is how I would naturally think of things... - thats assuming
that the package is called cygwin that is being talked about in #1
#4 - which is like #1 other then difference stated.
-src tarball contains
        cygwin/<pristine tarball, without renaming or repacking>
        (possibly other stuff in cygwin/, if necessary - post install
scripts come to mind)
        cygwin/<build script or makefile>
     newly generated bin tarballs placed in cygwin/BUILT
     newly generated src tarballs placed in cygwin/BUILT

The process of building would probably require the construction of some
other directories, build scripts choice and also its perogative to clean
them up - and yes its sort of sounding rather makefileish ... that way you
can just patch ths source only ... or patch and compile ... or patch compile
package-bin ... or patch compile install[-strip] and finally clean
Not sure what the point of generating src tarballs is... but I left that

I personally think that 3 files in one directory isnt getting too crowded...
and that all the extra directorys seem like overkill.
Then again - I also dont care about things looking like RPM or pkg

<snip the lot>

if I appear to have no clue ... thats understandable ;)
Anyway about it I can see that I am actually going to have to write proper
patches - rather then just keeping a copy of hacked files :P - all for the
best though...

Gareth Pearce

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