This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: LPRng issues (fwd)
Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> From: Brian Gallew <geek at burri dot to>
>> no patches whatsoever. I didn't regenerate configure or *.in. The
>> only difference between my source tarball and the original one is
>> that this one is pre-configured (in case someone just wants to type
>> "make"). If you'd prefer, I can certainly replace it with a
>> pristine source tarball. I'm hesitant to drop the autom4te cache
>> simply because then I really should provide a patch, and I have no
>> desire to provide unnecessary patches.
> You did good then. If something is in the original source tarball you
> should keep it.
> I'm not sure though that preconfiguring the package is a good idea -
> what about if the guy who wants to use the source package doesn't have
> OpenSSL installed and you had it ?
> What about including a directory named CYGWIN-PATCHES in the source
> tarball ? It should include the setup.hint file and the README file.
> This will require a patch I guess.
> If I am wrong, please, someone correct me.
You are not wrong, but there is more to say:
AFAIK, a README is not _required_. Neither is it required (also AFAIK) for
setup.hint to be *inside* the tarball (after all, if anyone wants it, they
can always grab it from any Cygwin mirror).
So, he *could* just put up the pure unchanged source tarball, if and only if
it builds with "./configure && make" with no options or patches.
Now, personally, I think method 2 (script-based) packaging is best, so I'd
suggest having a look at the "Method Two" section of