strange source packaging?

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 
>  From my point of view, when I download the source rpm for a package, I
> always find it rather annoying that I have to apply patches by hand.


Well, for rpm's, you can always do:

   rpm -bp <specfile>

which will unpack the tarball and apply the various patches.  Kinda like 
'foo-VER-REL.sh prep' in style 3.

>  I'd
> rather just have the latest, greatest version of things extracted into
> a directory where I can type "configure/make" without any extra thinking
> involved.


Well, yeah -- but both style 1 and style 2 presuppose that the cygwin 
chagnes have already been applied.  Only style 3 ships the unpatched 
source.  Style 1 just happens to include a "reveral patch" inside the 
tarball; that's the main difference between it and style 2.

However, as I recall, the main arguments (way back when) for including 
the reversal patch were basically a compromise between "I wanna unpack 
and GO" and "but where's the pristine source?".  The "where's the 
pristine source" crowd (me, Robert, etc) have style 3, if we REALLY care.

So, there's an argument for (!1),2,3...


> My 1c.  Now back to this resurrected discusion...


Sigh.

--Chuck