[PATCH] setup -e, --separate-src-dirs option

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Fri Dec 16 10:00:00 GMT 2011

On Dec 15 14:13, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 01:59 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > I think it's lame to have something like, e.g.,
> > 
> > /usr/src/openssh-5.6p1-2/openssh-5.6p1-2
> > /usr/src/binutils-2.22.51-1/binutils-2.22.51-1
> > 
> > sitting in my /usr/src.  I find that nearly as objectionable as having
> > files littered in /usr/src.

I don't like /usr/src/binutils-2.22.51-1/binutils-2.22.51-1 either, but
it's much less objectionable than having /usr/src littered with the
content of package files.  Especially given the fact that most(?)
packages today are packed using cygport which uses a flat file
structure.  And, I never liked the rpm way to put everything into
/usr/src/SOURCES or ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES either.  In the end, a useless
duplication of the source dir is easier to live with, IMO.

> Personally, I think hacking setup.exe is less time-consuming to provide
> the hack, but more compute-intensive, as the work is replicated on every
> machine where setup.exe is installed, as well as delayed implementation,
> as not everyone updates setup.exe right away; while repacking existing
> tarballs has a bigger up-front cost for the person doing the repacking,
> but provides a more efficient and instant downstream effect.  That, and
> repacking seems fairly easy to automate.  I'm now 75-25 in favor of
> cgf's proposed approach of repacking things and leaving setup.exe alone.

I think that computing time is negligible.  The idea to have the logic
in a single place, setup, is much more convincing to me than to enforce
a specific way to pack source packages.  Also, compare a 15 lines patch
against the hassle to change 1800 soyurce packages *and* to enforce a
new package method on all maintainers.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list