This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] libungif-4.1.0-2
- From: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- To: Lapo Luchini <lapo at lapo dot it>
- Cc: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at syncretize dot net>,cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:22:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: [ITP] libungif-4.1.0-2
- References: <000201c22cb8$549ac930$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <3D340061.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Lapo Luchini wrote:
It's not the size, it' a question of readability... for me, as a sample
user, I would strongly prefer to know "ahhh.. all it is needed is to
What is the issue with the patch size anyway?
Even a 900K patch will shrink massively when bz2'd, and the user doesn't
have to look at the content of the patch.
Followed immediately by a flurry of questions on the list "how do I
relibtoolize" -- not everybody knows how to do this.
instead of "urgh, it needs applying 900kb of patches!!!".
Of course this could be otherwise solved with some comments in the
libungif.README... but usually I prefer a "self documenting process"
that a "obscure process plus oducmentation".
I see the need to hame 3 packages installed minor ni respect of the
Actually, it's more like 9 packages (10, now). the -devel versions of
the autotools require the wrappers, and the wrappers require the -stable
AND -devel versions. That's 9. Then there's the new libltdl3 package.
uncleariness of having a gigantic patch.
Give in...strike down the small patch with all your anger, and your
journey to the dark side will be complete...
But that's me, and if everybody else thinks the other way is better I
have no problems in doing ni the gigantic-patch mode.