patches to vendor source trees - discussion

Charles Wilson
Fri Nov 2 11:16:00 GMT 2001

Okay, I put my money where my mouth is.  See

I've implemented two slightly different src packaging schemes: the one I've 
been advocating, and a slightly modified version of the scheme Robert likes.

STYLE 1 (Chuck):
-src archive contains an inner "pristine" tarball in cygwin/SOURCES/ along 
with a patch in the same directory.  Since setup will automagically unpack 
-src archives into /usr/src, that means we have "/usr/src/cygwin/SOURCES/". 
  Also, the -src archive contains a build script in cygwin/SPECS/.

So, -src contains 3 files, total.

STYLE 2 (Robert):

Since Corinna suggested that any scheme uses the RPM-ish directories, I've 
adapted Robert's debian-like scheme to fit that structure (basically, just 
put the src tarball and the patch in cygwin/SOURCES, but the README 
instructs to unpack, patch, and build under cygwin/BUILD rather than *right 
there* like debian does).

When you unpack the inner (pristine) archive and apply the patch, you get a 
"rules" file (shell script, not makefile, in this example) in 
CYGWIN-PATCHES.  I'm pretending that <srctop>/CYGWIN-PATCHES/ is like 
debian's <srctop>/debian/.

-src contains 2 files, total.

These differences don't sound like much, but when you get down to it, it's 
actually pretty profound.  Since we don't (yet) have an outside tool to 
handle unpacking the inner archive and applying the patch, Robert's scheme 
is unwieldy IMO.  This leads to lots of little differences in how you 
rebuild the -src archive, naming (and dir structure) of the "pristine" 
inner archive, etc.

Until we actually HAVE a dpkg tool (or unless we change setup.exe to do 
more than just unpack into /usr/src) I like style 1 better.

Anyway, go to the URL, download, check it out.  I'm going to bed.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list