Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/14/04:41:20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
> To: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
>
>
> > Has anybody had a chance to take a look at this stuff yet?
Comments?
> >
> > Possibly reactions;
> > 1) I like style 1 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard
> > 1a) [1], but with modifications
> > 2) I like style 2 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard
> > 2a) [2], but with modifications
> > 3) what the **** are you doing? What's wrong with what we've got?
> > 4) Yeah, we need to change something, but both of these examples
suck
> > 5) [obligatory] why don't we use rpm? dpkg?
> > 6) other
4 is me.
I must have communicated very ineffectively. I'd like to address some
points from that web page..
===
>1) as maintainer, mucking with
>the so-called "pristine" source archive so that it unpacks into
the -${REL}
>directory is counterintuitive.
I never suggested this. I suggested that the patch be versioned, not the
source tree. The source tree versioning came up in a discuss with
respect to a potential new package, and our -current- system requires
the source tree versioning.
>(2) It can't clean up after itself (you
>can't 'rm -rf <srcdir>' when you're running
'<srcdir>/CYGWIN-PATCHES/foo.sh'.
I don't recall this being a goal, but fair enough.
>(3) unpacking and applying the patch by hand is annoying -- it'd be
nice
>if this could be automated. Setup could do this for us, but that
requires
>mods to setup. Primary goal here is NO changes to setup. It just
>unpacks the -src archive -- e.g. current behavior -- and does NOT
>unpack any internal archives or try to apply patches for us.
I don't see how style 1 is any better than style 2 other than the fact
you are suppling a canned script to patch the source. IMO we're better
off with a canned script that can patch the source for _any_ package
given the package name.
In fact thats what having the patch outside the source dir was _all_
about in my discussion.
I've sent you privately an archive that fits what I was visualizing
during our discussions, and it is a little different from 1 or 2. If you
could put that up for review with the rest, that would be nice.
Ideally in fact, with setup to help, the archive I've sent you would be
two separate archives - the vendors and the patch. But I haven't altered
setup to do that (but have no objection to doing so). In fact I've no
objection to enlisting setup for a lot of stuff now the categories has
hit the ground.
Rob
- Raw text -