Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3CBDBDCB.8EAC2BD6@lapo.it>
Date:	Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:24:11 +0200
From:	Lapo Luchini <lapo AT lapo DOT it>
X-Accept-Language:	it,en,fr,es,ja
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Mailing List: CygWin <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: strange source packaging?
References:	<3CBDA9CF DOT 877BBFA4 AT lapo DOT it> <3CBDBBAE DOT 3040802 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>

> As to why the .gz(or.bz2) compressed "original source code" tarball is
> included inside an .bz2 -src package, when the internal tarball can't
> really be compressed further:  it's the original.  If I ungzip it, and
> then bzip it, then it isn't the original version EXACTLY as distributed
> by the upstream folks...
>
> Hope that helps explain it.

Thanks for the long explanation (it seems that there is always some part of
this ML that doesn't hit my eyes, even if I read it all ^_^)... anyway the
base is "exact original is preferred upon size" if I got it right.. right?
(even if a gunzip <source | bzip2 >dest would alter in no way the tar and I
see no diffrence between 'dest' and 'source' in any pratical way (uhm.. people
)... but inter-programmer politics is not my concern, your answer fully
satisfied my curiosity)

Thanks,
Lapo

PS: I can see at least a motivation for using "exact original package" now: so
that people can use md5sum and get convinced that the included file is really
exactly the original...

--
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
lapo AT lapo DOT it (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)

- Raw text -