X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4B86C273.3060305@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:33:23 -0600
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygport suggestion
References: <4B86A1AA DOT 6090009 AT redhat DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4B86A1AA.6090009@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On 2010-02-25 10:13, Eric Blake wrote:
> Several GNU packages are now starting to supply additional configure
> arguments in the --with-packager namespace, in order to ease the branding
> of a downstream distro build.  My recent m4 1.4.14 build shows the effect
> of using them:
> [...]
> Notice the additional lines mentioning Cygwin.  Is it worth teaching
> cygport to automatically supply configure arguments of:
>
> --with-packager=Cygwin --with-packager-version=$PVR \
>       --with-packager-bug-reports='<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>'
>
> for packages that support this idiom?  If not, then this email serves as a
> hint for other packagers to modify their own .cygport files.

cygconf provides the standard arguments which are common to all 
autoconf-generated configures.  AFAICS (but correct me if I'm wrong) 
these are not standard arguments, rather separate AC_ARG_WITHs which 
some packages are choosing to implement.  In that case I consider them 
package-specific and I would encourage packagers to add them accordingly 
to those packages' CYGCONF_ARGS or as arguments to cygconf.

Thanks though for the heads-up.


Yaakov

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