Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Sasl-enc: d7hqkjj0+xuwSOuiVJhCpg 1068263263
Message-ID: <3FAC67EB.7030205@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:50:03 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cygwin AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030630
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin patches integrating back into standard gnu
References: <3FAABE0A DOT 6090406 AT ekers DOT idps DOT co DOT uk> <1068154769 DOT 3faabf91a071f AT www DOT nexusmail DOT uwaterloo DOT ca> <20031106222357 DOT GA25195 AT redhat DOT com> <20031107023331 DOT GA16244 AT mdssdev05 DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <3FAB099D DOT 9090705 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <20031107191452 DOT GB16244 AT mdssdev05 DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <3FAC62E6 DOT 8050404 AT fastmail DOT fm>
In-Reply-To: <3FAC62E6.8050404@fastmail.fm>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.1.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

cwilson wrote:

> So that YOU don't have to?  (And wait.  What are the current cygwin 
> maintainers doing so badly that you want to take over and redo their 
> jobs for them?)
> 
> Look.  Patches should go back to the upstream package. There should not 
> be a bunch of extant, uncommitted patches laying about -- for ANY 
> platform.  IF there are, it *means* something:

> 3) The patch has been rejected by the current maintainers.  Ditto.

Funny, I *just today* recieved a reply concerning a patch I submitted 
upstream to the zlib developers -- who are preparing the 1.2.1 release. 
  With apologies to the zlib maintainer, I quote the relevant portion 
and my response here:

------------- ZLIB correspondence ----------------
>> Though I tried, I could not bring myself to apply the patch.  It does
>> too much violence to what's there and working.  Perhaps a patch that
>> does not try to build both static and shared at the same time could be
>> simpler.
> 
> Yeah, that's fair.
> 
>> I did put in a wee bit of the patch though--appending .exe as
>> appropriate, and the minigzip.c patch.
> 
> Yes, this is actually a great help.  EXE-related changes are always the most tedious part of cygwin/mingw patches, as with each new release those changes must be replicated by hand.  (Not that it's an issue with zlib, which has only had 1.5 releases while I've been working with it and cygwin : 1.1.3 -> 1.1.4, and (not yet) 1.1.4 -> 1.2.x )
> 
> But with other packages, for some reason, other mods just seem to easily migrate "up" to each new release -- patch spews a few warnings about fuzz & offset, and that's it.  But the exe stuff almost always must be redone by hand.  So, accepting just that portion of the patch is more helpful than you'd think.
------------- ZLIB correspondence ----------------

> Here's a SUGGESTION
> 
> Instead of proposing grand new layers of bureaucracy requiring time, 
> dedication and server resources and which PLACE BARRIERS between the 
> patch originator and the people who might actually integrate them into 
> the official dists, simply contact a cygwin maintainer 

via the preferred mechanism for contacting ANY cygwin package maintainer 
-- this mailing list.

> about a package 
> you're concerned about, 

--
Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/