patches to vendor source trees - discussion

[Charles Wilson]

Has anybody had a chance to take a look at this stuff yet?  Comments?

Possibly reactions;
1) I like style 1 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard
1a) [1], but with modifications
2) I like style 2 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard
2a) [2], but with modifications
3) what the **** are you doing?  What's wrong with what we've got?
4) Yeah, we need to change something, but both of these examples suck
5) [obligatory] why don't we use rpm? dpkg?
6) other

--Chuck

Charles Wilson wrote:

> Okay, I put my money where my mouth is.  See
> 
> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/packaging/
> 
> 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.
> 
> --Chuck
>