Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/06/09/00:20:01
Billinghurst, David (CRTS) wrote:
> I'd prefer the re-autotool stuff to be part of the user build process.
> I was going to propose this for ImageMagick, as it reduces the patches
> from approx 1 Mb down to 2 lines. Much easier to understand.
IMO, this is a maintainer decision. If David wants to keep the cygwin
"fork" small, but require the autotools to build-from-source, that's up
to him. Some existing packages do it that way; others include a
massively huge "re-autotool" patch in the -src package. Either way.
Ideally, David's method is "better" -- because that way it's easier to
"up-port" the cygwin fork to a new version, it's clear what the
"important" changes are that need to be pushed upstream, etc. However,
it's harder for the cygwin maintainer to keep things separate --
especially the "./foo-VER-REL.sh spkg" step, because the mkpatch
sub-step becomes tricky if not impossible to automate...therefore, you
have to manually maintain the (small) patch.
I tend to use David's method when I'm syncing against source in a CVS
repository (libtool, a few others). I tend to just say "ah, the heck
with it" and ship a mega-patch in other cases.
FWIW, I haven't had a chance to look specifically at David's gnupg
package yet. I'll try to do so tomorrow -- but I'm on dailup now... :-(
--Chuck
- Raw text -