This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [64bit] Biber packaging questions
- From: Ken Brown <kbrown at cornell dot edu>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:38:18 -0400
- Subject: Re: [64bit] Biber packaging questions
- References: <51B8813F dot 6060207 at cornell dot edu> <20130612151802 dot GH30807 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <CAHiT=DEnVwCy+S-oYM7LUCmHk2o1K6s+-jPTyfhHg8Wh7HHyiQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51BB65D4 dot 6090607 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <CAHiT=DEzXn_duPSHmjg=T2vMHEGLiptxC0rpFY-YANjcYpVniA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87vc5fbld5 dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid>
On 6/15/2013 8:37 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
It's easy enough to provide bundle packages and the normal user would
never need to look at the individual distribution packages.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the need for bundle
packages. Take the example of biber. I had to build a bunch of perl-*
packages, and cygport figured out the dependencies among them and the
dependencies of biber. A user who installs biber automatically gets the
necessary Perl modules without ever having to look at them in the
chooser. How would a bundle make this easier?
A few of the perl-* packages are needed for building biber but not for
using it. I took care of these by setting DEPEND in the .cygport files.
So people who want to replicate the build will need to select the
necessary packages [listed by cygport] in the chooser. A bundle would
admittedly make this easier.
But there's nothing special about Perl modules here. You always have to
worry about build dependencies when you build a package from source.
And we are not yet at the point where we are asking maintainers (or
cygport) to create build-dependency packages.