nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :)

Robert Collins
Wed Nov 7 12:25:00 GMT 2001

1) IMO the setup.hint should have :'s. They are optional, but being the
same as setup.ini would be nice.
2) your script is misleadingly-named - (it's also chmoding
nano.exe) Perhaps
3) I'd suggest ( cd /usr/info ; for i in ; do install-info
$i --dir-file=dir ; done ) instead of installing _every_ info file in
the directory, as that could get quite slow :].

As for recompressing the source, I don't really want to get into the
game of *fixing* packages. That simply won't scale as the package count
scales. I'll happily vet packages from first-time contributors though
(as I just did).

However, as there are changes to this just-around-the corner, when Chuck
and I convince one another :] I think it'll be fine as is. Or you could
change it, as you'll have to recompress the tarball anyway to get the
updated install script into the source.

Drop a new setup.hint and updated tarballs in your web page, and barring
anyone's objecting to the package being included by tomorrow I'll upload
it for you.

One last thing, and at this point I don't think it matters, you don't
include info on how to recreate the binary package and source package in
your README. I don't think this is an issue, as long as you do document
that before handing the maintenance to someone else (thinking long term


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth Pearce" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:53 PM
Subject: nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :)

> Hi
> decided to go with 2 ... since no one else felt the desire to
> anyway...
> contains nano 1.0.6 src and binary - patched, no dir file and a
> script - which is a copy of the indent one modified minorly. Also a
> setup.hint file - which I think is right...
> well anyway ... tell me what to fix up ... and it shall be done.
> Gareth

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list