This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] ARCH=noarch uploads with cygport 0.22.0
- From: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:59:32 -0500
- Subject: Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] ARCH=noarch uploads with cygport 0.22.0
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9de6f042-3510-ef4c-9c2d-90f354244691 at cygwin dot com> <640fc068-fd9c-1570-f3ab-3b8b40b169cb at cornell dot edu> <89116a28-b737-4663-c2cb-6c648ba48b98 at cygwin dot com> <5733AA48 dot 4020506 at cornell dot edu> <3fd5ba16-85e7-9a9d-288a-f90ddc41e4c8 at cygwin dot com> <dd89a625-ebe3-d54c-ea94-516eac3eeb0f at cornell dot edu>
On 2016-05-11 17:30, Ken Brown wrote:
On 5/11/2016 6:17 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2016-05-11 16:55, Ken Brown wrote:
On 5/11/2016 4:35 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
I haven't moved these yet, but what about the rest of the collections?
TEXLIVE_ARCH_PKGS do have CPU-cygwin paths in the "sources", but are
No, the only issue is the sources. As it stands, if someone downloads
the source from one arch and tries to build on the other, cygport will
complain about missing source packages. Of course, running 'cygport
fetch' will fix that, so it's not a big deal.
Maybe in the future we should add the TEXLIVE_ARCH_PKGS for both CPUs to
the sources, and then there's no issue at all.
How about the attached?
Looks good to me. Thanks.