Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <3C0E5FE5.9040908@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 12:56:53 -0500 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010914 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen CC: Robert Collins , "Gerrit P. Haase" Subject: Re: experimental texmf packages References: <878764062.20011128173421@nyckelpiga.de> <4434079433.20011129221637@familiehaase.de> <9517228633.20011203135833@familiehaase.de> <3C0D8535.D67735D1@ece.gatech.edu> <00d501c17d93$1936c990$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Do we already have -src packages that adhere to this new convention? Yep. mktemp. automake, automake-devel, automake-stable, autoconf, autoconf-devel, autoconf-stable, cygutils, ... > If it's not too late, it would be very nice if they could be > distinguished from the old, prepatched -src packages, by using a > different naming convention, ie foo-1.1-cyg.tar.gz? probably too late -- and besides, I don't think setup/upset are prepared for source packages that don't end in -src. But why should they be distinguished? It's up to the maintainer of each package to keep track...non-maintainers who want to build it personally should just download and follow the instructions. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/