Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/02/19:55:30
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 10:58:56AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 05:47, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 12:23:12PM -0500, Roth, Kevin P. wrote:
>
>> >2) Under "Making Packages", I think the "standard" for binary packages
>> >is to leave off the initial "/" on filenames inside the tarball. E.g.:
>> > usr/doc/cURL-7.9/README
>> >instead of
>> > /usr/doc/cURL-7.9/README
>> >I think the point is to allow someone to expand the binary package into
>> >some other location (besides "/") if desired for whatever reason.
>>
>> I think this is implied by:
>>
>> * Binary packages are extracted in /, include all file paths from the
>> root in your archive.
>>
>> Actually, this should be:
>>
>> /usr/doc/cygwin/cURL-7.9-1.README
>> or
>> /usr/doc/cygwin/cURL-7.9.README
>
>In the tarball it needs to be usr/doc/cygwin/cURL-7.9-1.README doesn't
>it? (for correct manual extraction).
>
>Hmm, I'll have to dig beep into tar.cc to answer this - Chris what is
>the impact of skipping a leading / ?
Isn't everyone already building packages without the leading '/'? GNU
tar complains about absolute filenames otherwise. I guess I'm now scared
to check. I missed the fact that everyone was producing packages without
the -n part. Maybe everyone is also producing packages with leading '/'
too.
However, relative paths are correct. I guess it makes sense to be
specific and refer to this as usr/doc/cURL-7.9-1/README but, as I said,
I thought this was implied.
>> >3) I realize this one is kind of nit-picky, but the 4th bullet under
>> >"Making Packages" mentions a "file" named /usr/doc/foo-vendor, when in
>> >fact this should call it a "directory".
>>
>> Actually, this is correct. This should be a file.
>
>Nope, directory. Sorry Chris :}.
Yes, I've already noted this. I must have missed a memo. I guess this
is a testimony to the fact that I never have to read the documentation.
cgf
- Raw text -