new package proposal : CLISP
Sat Sep 13 19:12:00 GMT 2003
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> Now, I propose that if the package builds OOTB with the settings from
> cygwin.com/setup.html, you can skip the README, but it is still
> recommended to have a README. Also it would be nice to note in the README
> what packages you need for compiling (gcc, make, perl, gettext, etc.)
> to avoid downloading the source only to have to go back and download
> libintl27-devel or something.
I think the setup.hint format allows build-requires, but I'm not sure if
setup.exe supports them -- or if it should. What if I want to simply
download a source package to look at it, but not build it? Should setu
prevent me from downloading foo-src unless I also select bar-devel and
baz-devel, the build-requires packages for foo-src?
> My list of no-README packages:
is completely wrong.
Not a real package. It's a fake pseudo package with an
auto-incrementing version number, to assist all the OTHER packages that
install info files.
Now, the rest of the packages that I have copied into this message from
your "list" are mine (that is, I've ignored those packages in your
"list" that are not mine). All of my packages that appear in your
"list" either (A) DO have READMEs so I'll thank you to stop spreading
FUD about my packages, or (B) are "dll-only" packages (see below).
Many of the other packages, which are not mine but do appear in your
"list", ALSO actually have READMEs. Those that do not (e.g. the rare
instance where your "list" was correct) typically predate the
codification on the webpage. Consider them grandfathered.
These are DLL packages, built from the same sources as the main package.
They cannot contain READMEs because the readme's would clash -- the
whole point of the DLL packages is to allow simultaneous coexistence. A
DLL-only package is just that: only the DLL and nothing else.
More information about the Cygwin-apps