Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/13/14:30:53
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
--Chuck
Charles Wilson wrote:
> Okay, I put my money where my mouth is. See
>
> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/packaging/
>
> I've implemented two slightly different src packaging schemes: the one
> I've been advocating, and a slightly modified version of the scheme
> Robert likes.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> STYLE 1 (Chuck):
> -src archive contains an inner "pristine" tarball in cygwin/SOURCES/
> along with a patch in the same directory. Since setup will
> automagically unpack -src archives into /usr/src, that means we have
> "/usr/src/cygwin/SOURCES/". Also, the -src archive contains a build
> script in cygwin/SPECS/.
>
> So, -src contains 3 files, total.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> STYLE 2 (Robert):
>
> Since Corinna suggested that any scheme uses the RPM-ish directories,
> I've adapted Robert's debian-like scheme to fit that structure
> (basically, just put the src tarball and the patch in cygwin/SOURCES,
> but the README instructs to unpack, patch, and build under cygwin/BUILD
> rather than *right there* like debian does).
>
> When you unpack the inner (pristine) archive and apply the patch, you
> get a "rules" file (shell script, not makefile, in this example) in
> CYGWIN-PATCHES. I'm pretending that <srctop>/CYGWIN-PATCHES/ is like
> debian's <srctop>/debian/.
>
> -src contains 2 files, total.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> These differences don't sound like much, but when you get down to it,
> it's actually pretty profound. Since we don't (yet) have an outside
> tool to handle unpacking the inner archive and applying the patch,
> Robert's scheme is unwieldy IMO. This leads to lots of little
> differences in how you rebuild the -src archive, naming (and dir
> structure) of the "pristine" inner archive, etc.
>
> Until we actually HAVE a dpkg tool (or unless we change setup.exe to do
> more than just unpack into /usr/src) I like style 1 better.
>
> Anyway, go to the URL, download, check it out. I'm going to bed.
>
> --Chuck
>
- Raw text -