This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com 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: pcre packages



AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!


Please don't go back here.

http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-05/msg00060.html

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
The archives look ok but do we really need 5 of them for a 145K package?

Why not delivering cygpcre.dll and cygpcreposix.dll as hardlinks inside
of libpcre0?  As long as pcre isn't breaking backward compatibility,
that should be ok.  And the docs could be part of the devel package,
I guess.  This would drop the packages to 3 + src.

Trust me, bite the bullet now. That way, you'll have fewer problems when (if) pcre-5.0 breaks compatibility. Arguably, ALL packages that provide DLLs and have *any* possibility of API changes should be packaged this way.


After all, Red Hat does, for most -src.rpm's that provide libraries. Ditto Debian. Splitting is good.

Splitting upon initial contribution is even better, because it avoids the upgrade hell that these five packages are necessary to work around, in order to get to the state of goodness that is 'split packages'.

--Chuck



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