strange source packaging?

Charles Wilson cwilson@ece.gatech.edu
Thu Apr 18 07:41:00 GMT 2002


Corinna Vinschen wrote:


> If I'm looking over a package for inclusion I'm currently accepting
> two styles:
> 
>   package-ver-subver/
>     ...


Both "style 1" and "style 2" in my original email obey this.  The 
difference is that "style 2" packages -- gcc, binutils, make, etc -- 
don't have
   package-ver-subver/CYGWIN-PATCHES/a-patch
in fact, they don't have 'a-patch' at all.  They are, in effect, forks 
of the antecedent project.   There is no way, given just 
gcc-2.95.3-5-src.tar.bz2, to "revert to the 'original' source" -- short 
of also downloading the 2.95.3 source from www.gcc.org, unpacking both, 
and doing 'diff -r cygwin-version-of-gcc gnu-version-of-gcc'.

Granted, new packages should never be style 2.  But style 2 is in use.


> or
> 
>   package-ver-subver.patch
>   package-ver-subver.sh
>   package-ver.tar.[bg]z[2*]   <-- The pristine source
> 
> Can we agree to use and document only these styles?


The question is, should I document all styles in use, or only those 
styles which are acceptable for new packages?

I could argue either way.

--Chuck




More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list