This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: -src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a
- From: "Paul G." <pgarceau at qwest dot net>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:30:24 -0800
- Subject: Re: -src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a
- Organization: New Dawn Productions
- Reply-to: Paul Garceau <pgarceau at qwest dot net>
On 21 Nov 2001 at 12:48, the Illustrious Robert Collins wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul G." <email@example.com>
> > Now, to the issue at hand:
> > Complete Source?
> > Finally, for those who don't care about dependencies, and typically
> > download "All" the source, there is added a new category
> > "Cygwin -- Complete Source" (for lack of a better description).
> This is a good point, one I hadn't considered. Added to the wishlist.
Thanks for considering it.
> IMO setup.exe as a installer/bootstrapper should not manage source code
> - download yes
> - install/build/update no.
Makes sense to me. Besides, if managing source code trees is the goal, then I think that CVS already covers
most of that functionality.
Setup isn't really designed for managing source code trees.
Downloading/installing source code it can do. Guess the real question is what should the default -src package be
on an Install/download using setup.exe. My suggestion, in that case, would be the last stable -src package release,
which, I have assumed, is default behaviour for setup.exe where source code archives are involved.
> I think I've been consistent about this :}. I think that there should be
> tools for the users to apply to the downloaded source, and that they
> should be able to use setup.exe as a batch tool to grab source.
> The rpm BuildReq and deb Build-depends tags are identical afaict - they
> specify what _binary_ packages are needed to build a given source
> i.e. to build curl+ssl one needs (in a fully split up package world),
> libcygwin-dev, libssl-dev. And they in turn depend on libcygwin and
> I like the concepts you've outlined,
>but I think it's much better to
> leverage the existing batch style tools for either rpm or debs that
> provide the same capabilities. Which means either convert those tools to
> work with cygwin packages, or get setup to work with those tools :}.