cygwin patches integrating back into standard gnu

[Charles Wilson]

cwilson wrote:

> So that YOU don't have to?  (And wait.  What are the current cygwin 
> maintainers doing so badly that you want to take over and redo their 
> jobs for them?)
> 
> Look.  Patches should go back to the upstream package. There should not 
> be a bunch of extant, uncommitted patches laying about -- for ANY 
> platform.  IF there are, it *means* something:

> 3) The patch has been rejected by the current maintainers.  Ditto.

Funny, I *just today* recieved a reply concerning a patch I submitted 
upstream to the zlib developers -- who are preparing the 1.2.1 release. 
  With apologies to the zlib maintainer, I quote the relevant portion 
and my response here:

------------- ZLIB correspondence ----------------
>> Though I tried, I could not bring myself to apply the patch.  It does
>> too much violence to what's there and working.  Perhaps a patch that
>> does not try to build both static and shared at the same time could be
>> simpler.
> 
> Yeah, that's fair.
> 
>> I did put in a wee bit of the patch though--appending .exe as
>> appropriate, and the minigzip.c patch.
> 
> Yes, this is actually a great help.  EXE-related changes are always the most tedious part of cygwin/mingw patches, as with each new release those changes must be replicated by hand.  (Not that it's an issue with zlib, which has only had 1.5 releases while I've been working with it and cygwin : 1.1.3 -> 1.1.4, and (not yet) 1.1.4 -> 1.2.x )
> 
> But with other packages, for some reason, other mods just seem to easily migrate "up" to each new release -- patch spews a few warnings about fuzz & offset, and that's it.  But the exe stuff almost always must be redone by hand.  So, accepting just that portion of the patch is more helpful than you'd think.
------------- ZLIB correspondence ----------------

> Here's a SUGGESTION
> 
> Instead of proposing grand new layers of bureaucracy requiring time, 
> dedication and server resources and which PLACE BARRIERS between the 
> patch originator and the people who might actually integrate them into 
> the official dists, simply contact a cygwin maintainer 

via the preferred mechanism for contacting ANY cygwin package maintainer 
-- this mailing list.

> about a package 
> you're concerned about, 

--
Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/