[Packaging error] Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: mingw-runtime-3.12-1

[Dave Korn]

On 04 April 2007 16:29, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:

>> I'm somewhat unhappy with the idea to include MingW man pages in a
>> Cygwin installation.  Cygwin and MingW are just two different beasts, no
>> matter that they run on the same base OS.  I would prefer either not to
>> install MingW man pages at all in Cygwin, or to create a specific
>> mingw-manpages package which installs the man pages in a MingW specific
>> folder like, say, /usr/share/doc/mingw/man.  This package should only be
>> installed on explicit request by the user.  It could come with .sh and a
>> .csh shell script in /etc/profile.d which sets MANPATH as
>> /etc/profile.d/openssl.*sh does.  OTOH, the requirement to prefix the
>> man pages with "mingw-" would still exist so that no user confuses MingW
>> and Cygwin man pages.  Am I overcomplicating things?
> 
> It seems that the general consensus is that the man pages should not
> be installed as part of the package.  I don't know if there is much of
> a point installing them to a different location, since the MANPATH
> would need to manually be updated, or the user would need to execute a
> script to have the MANPATH updated 'automatically'.

  Well, yes.  And if you install a cross-compiler, you have to adjust your
$PATH, but nobody sees any kind of problem in that.  In general, cross-stuff
should live in $prefix/$target; that was my reasoning for suggesting
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/man last time we had this discussion.

> In terms of packaging, is it sufficient to just remove them from the
> binary package, but leave them in the source (i.e. update the bindist
> target to not include the man pages under a cygwin target)?  Or is it
> desired to remove them completely (i.e. update the srcdist target as
> well)?

  I'd suggest always supplying the *full* source distribution, and only
cutting down on what gets tar'd up into the binary package.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....