Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To:	Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-Id:	<6.1.0.6.0.20040422133723.038e2548@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender:
Date:	Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:46:57 -0400
To:	"Philip Brown" <pbrown00 AT earthlink DOT net>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From:	Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Anomalies in Source Distributions
In-Reply-To:	<E1BGhh4-0003aF-00@turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net>
References:	<E1BGhh4-0003aF-00 AT turkey DOT mail DOT pas DOT earthlink DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 01:08 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
>For whatever it's worth, I've come across the following anomalies which look
>like very minor configuration control bugs in the Cygwin source
>distributions (but what do I know ;-)

<snip>

>cygutils-1.2.4-1.tar.bz2 - The doc files have 1.2.4 instead of 1.2.4-1 on
>them in the .tar.bz2 file (due to .sh script).  Specifically:
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/AUTHORS
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/BRANCHES
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/COPYING
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/HOW-TO-CONTRIBUTE
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/NEWS
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/PROGLIST
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/README
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/TODO


No, this is fine.  These files are typically provided as part of the upstream
release of a package so they don't know about Cygwin package release numbers,
which is what the "-<number>" format is.


>   /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/cygutils-1.2.4.README
>
>sharutils-4.2.1-3 - Similar to above for file:
>   /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/sharutils.README
>   which should be sharutils-4.2.1-3.README per your configuration system to
>the best of my understanding.


No.  The prescribed approach from <http://cygwin.com/setup.html> is:

  In your binary package, include a file /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-  
  suffix.README containing (at a minimum) the information needed for an end 
  user to recreate the package. This includes CFLAGS settings, configure 
  parameters, etc. 

This doesn't say any package version number is a requirement.  There are 
benefits to leaving the number off (i.e. the same file applies to any 
version).



--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     


--
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/

- Raw text -