cygwin-pkg-maint maintance

Corinna Vinschen
Mon Aug 11 10:44:00 GMT 2014

On Aug 10 23:55, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 15:33, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> >I was looking at the needed maintenance of cygwin-pkg-maint,
> >crossing the data of x86 setup.ini with cygwin-pkg-maint
> >and I found 2 main classes of mismatch plus a minor one
> Thanks for taking the time to look into this!


> The source packages should definitely be added; the subpackages depends on
> your last question.
> >2) packages that are in cygwin-pkg-maint but not in setup.ini (nor x86
> >or x86_64 ones)
> >
> >most are OBSOLETE but not clearly defined as such, like
> >db2, db3.1, .. of Volker
> >libqhull, liblapack of mine
> Do you have a complete list?
> >3) typos
> >     libgck1-ddoc -> libgck1-doc
> >     libzziplib-devel -> libzzip-devel
> Yes, these are obvious fixes.
> >Question before I start to modify cygwin-pkg-maint:
> >
> >Does still make sense to report all binary packages in
> >the cygwin-pkg-maint files ?
> >Should we cluster them at source package or directory level as accepted
> >by the upload procedure ?
> >Specially for the dll libraries the name are continuously bumped, and
> >we will be always behind. At first glance we are missing ~ 200
> >packages; so roughly 8% of all the binary packages (~ 2700).
> >The active source packages are ~ 1400 and they change much
> >less frequently (ITP, ITA, orphanage and obsolescence)
> >so a better accuracy is possible.
> I've actually been thinking along the same lines.  AFAICS, the new upload
> mechanism doesn't care about subpackage listings so long as the source
> package is listed (provided, of course, that the standard directory layout
> is used).
> Therefore, the only "benefit" to having subpackages listed would be purely
> informative, but as you point out, 1) right now it's behind, 2) it's high
> maintenance for little gain, plus 3) a single person must anyway maintain an
> entire package with all its subpackages, and 4) nor does it actually
> indicate which subpackages map to which source packages.
> So I am all in favour of making this a source-only list, in line with other
> distro package maintainer "databases".
> Marco, if you're interested, please go ahead and add the missing *source*
> packages and fix those typos, but please hold off on removing anything until
> we hear from Corinna.

No worries, this all makes sense to me.  The original list was based on
some automatism to fetch the info and then had to be kept in shape
manually and naturally deteriorated.

Let's keep the base (source) packages in the list and remove the

Thanks a lot for your help, Marco.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list