Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:25:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Sender: cwilson AT frontal DOT ibb DOT gatech DOT edu
To: "Stephen C. Biggs" <s_c_biggs AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: Michael Hirmke <mh AT mike DOT franken DOT de>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Suggestion for submitted port package naming standard...
In-Reply-To: <3A3FB1A8.3167.AAFBB@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0012201306540.1055-100000@frontal.ibb.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Stephen C. Biggs wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2000, at 21:56, Michael Hirmke wrote:
> 
> > >How about this (for both distro and ftp.franken.de):
> > ><package name and version>.CYGWIN[version??]-PATCHED.src.tar.gz
> > ><package name and version>.CYGWIN-BINARY-INSTALL.tar.gz
> > ><package name and version>.CYGWIN.patch
> > ><package name and version>.CYGWIN.README
> > >
> > >Either the README would have a link to the vanilla source tarball or a
> > >separate text file:
> > ><package name and version>.CYGWIN.VANILLA-SOURCE-URL.txt
> > >
> > >This way, no ambiguities.
> > >
> > >Comments?
> > 
> > Sorry, but it is surely not me to decide this.
> 
> Who IS the one to decide?

For a package you just put on the net somewhere? Like
franken.de/porters? Do whatever you like -- porters' discretion.

For a package that is part of the official distribution?  "The
community".  However, IMO, those who have already contributed ports to the
official distribution should have an extra "vote" -- any change will
require tens (perhaps hundreds) of manhours from:

cgf, corinna, dj, chuck wilson, michael ring, (anyone else?) 

to retrofit and test existing packages to the new standard.  Also, don't
forget that the parsing code in setup.exe will have to be changed.  You
run the risk that some porters will refuse to cooperate (me, for
instance.  I DO have a dissertation to finish, you know -- and wasting
time duplicationg work already completed is NOT part of the plan)

Perhaps it's not clear, but the distribution DOES have a naming
scheme.  Check the archives of cygwin-apps, but I'll present it
hear.  Consider a package "foo":

foo-1.2.tar.gz
  the original linux sourcce code from FSF or whereever.

foo-1.2-3-src.tar.gz
  the cygwin source code package.  Third revision for cygwin based on the
1.2 source.  This is ALWAYS presented with the appropriate patch
ALREADY appied.  It should "just work" on cygwin. (This is where the
"standard" breaks down:  some porters include the cygwin patch within this
archive -- but remember, it has already been applied -- others just say
"do a diff with the original source from FSF to figure out what has
changed to make it work on cygwin)

foo-1.2-3.tar.gz
  the cygwin binary package.  Third revision for cygwin based on the 1.2
source.  Built directly from the 1.2-3-src package.

If you want to follow a more explicit naming scheme for packages that you
put on franken.de  -- fine.  Please do.  Perhaps others will follow
your lead when THEY put packages on the web.  You are right -- there is
NO standard for ported packages various developers put on the web.  

There IS a standard for the packages in the official distribution, and we
need a better reason than "it's confusing" to change it.  (Plus a fully
debugged patch for setup.exe to support both the old and new parsing
schemes during the transition.)
 
You're asking for a LOT of time from a bunch of people, for no real gain
IMO.

--Chuck



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple