Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/18/10:44:47
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> If I'm looking over a package for inclusion I'm currently accepting
> two styles:
>
> package-ver-subver/
> ...
Both "style 1" and "style 2" in my original email obey this. The
difference is that "style 2" packages -- gcc, binutils, make, etc --
don't have
package-ver-subver/CYGWIN-PATCHES/a-patch
in fact, they don't have 'a-patch' at all. They are, in effect, forks
of the antecedent project. There is no way, given just
gcc-2.95.3-5-src.tar.bz2, to "revert to the 'original' source" -- short
of also downloading the 2.95.3 source from www.gcc.org, unpacking both,
and doing 'diff -r cygwin-version-of-gcc gnu-version-of-gcc'.
Granted, new packages should never be style 2. But style 2 is in use.
> or
>
> package-ver-subver.patch
> package-ver-subver.sh
> package-ver.tar.[bg]z[2*] <-- The pristine source
>
> Can we agree to use and document only these styles?
The question is, should I document all styles in use, or only those
styles which are acceptable for new packages?
I could argue either way.
--Chuck
- Raw text -