Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/14/19:49:45
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > > You merely changed the name of the internal tarball slightly.
> >
> > Correct, because it should have been the vendors tarball as is.
>
> Yeah, but didn't "we" decide that src packages should unpack into
> <pkg>-<ver>-<rel>? I've been making my packages (for the past year or
> more) unpack into <pkg>-<ver> regardless of what <rel> was, and
> distinctly remember concluding that I was "wrong" according to
consensus
> on the list.
...
> I don't have a problem with that, but it is contrary to the
> previously-discussed decision.
That consensus was because of alterations in the source/make
script/cygwin readme etc between each package update, to prevent them
tramping over each other. With those things contained in the patch, only
the patch needs versioning. (IMO).
> > I didn't realise I'd altered the README. Oops. I've been maintaining
> > that what I'm talking about is orthogonal to the package building at
> > this point. However I've updated the script & readme to use the
> > structure I have in the tarball. I've also mailed you another style3
> > tarball... built via 'mktemp-1.3.1-1.sh all'
>
> Sure -- they are orthogonal subjects until you bring a human into the
> process. Who has to unpack the -src dist, and then build it. As soon
> as you try to give that human instructions on unpacking/building, you
> create a link between the packaging and building -- thru the README
file
> and the .sh/rules/make/script.
I see the point. My point was that what we have for building already -
your CYGWIN.PATCHES/foo-ver-rel.sh script works well.
>
> The styleX-mktemp-1.3.1*.README and styleX-mktemp-1.3.1*.sh files are
> extracted from the tarballs for easier viewing, but the "dists"
consist
> only of the .tar.bz2 and -src.tar.bz2 files.
>
> Really, Robert, I don't see much difference between style2 and style3:
True.
>
> style3: unpacks HERE. (e.g. no embedded paths).
> build script creates -src.tar.bz2 HERE (overwrites
downloaded
> version?)
No, as the downloaded tarball is never saved - setup.exe extracts it
immediately.
i.e. in empty dir /usr/src (as setup.exe currently hardcodes).
run setup.exe download source for foo-2 (foo is the vendor name+version
combined)
you get foo-2.patch and foo.tar.bz2.
And if you do have an existing foo-2-src tarball, then yes the idea is
to replace it, after all you are making a new one deliberately. (or you
would not have passed "all" to the script.)
> build script creates .tar.bz2 HERE
yes.
> READMEs and build scripts differ only to support these ^^^^
differences;
> otherwise, they are the same.
Yup. The directories and patch location are the only things I've been
harping on about. IMO they are very important.
Rob
- Raw text -