DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:reply-to:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=DcHrcjxH8kj4ooZn
	fLpZWNVHWtUKZIIXmXOWgLd1IpucDY6LgjQmqqUnUuMHr2QMf8f+GJDPy3NU8FGe
	kHq4m10NaqqNBiCZmoJbDLBteHjVwfZNWuGUrhi64H8G9Lh4F5vRxsmhqWw3j+b9
	eD4qP0aNsd2YVFwzXAbfhM5tpw0=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.
To: eblake AT redhat DOT com, Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <55F1EAA8 DOT 5020806 AT cox DOT net> <FZ3x1r00P2qVqVd01Z3ytt> <55F2102B DOT 70900 AT cox DOT net> <FbXq1r00M2qVqVd01bXrPy>
Reply-To: Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From: David A Cobb <superbiskit AT cox DOT net>
Message-ID: <55F21833.9080708@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:54:27 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/43.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FbXq1r00M2qVqVd01bXrPy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2015-09-10 19:31, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 05:20 PM, David A Cobb wrote:
>
> Not a problem. My first patch to upstream coreutils was done exactly 
> in that manner.
>> And, suppose for the moment, some of the changes are only relevant to
>> the Windows platform.  I don't (yet) know how much GNU (i.e. RMS) really
>> gives a flying bird about making Windows play nice.  So, to whom do I
>> propose the changes?  I really, really don't want to create a private
>> fork.  If I didn't think my ideas are worthy of pushing up the food
>> chain, I should just go back to bed.
> Depends on how invasive your changes are. If it is truly
> windows-specific and hard to maintain, then upstream probably won't pay
> attention (which is why I maintain some cygwin-specific patches, such as
> .exe magic manipulations, downstream-only). But if it fixes a bad
> upstream assumption (such as "function foo would never do that", except
> that on cygwin function foo DOES do that, and it is feasible that some
> other system would do likewise), then upstream is the right place. (For
> example, my very first patch to upstream coreutils is dated 2005-01-11,
> where I fixed Makefile.am to deal with $(EXEEXT) - and more than just
> cygwin creates binaries with .exe suffix so it is relevant upstream).
>
> If you're unsure whether a proposed patch is worth posting upstream or
> downstream, pick one place, and I'm more than willing to help you
> redirect it to the other place if it wasn't appropriate.  (Picking
> upstream first is generally a nicer policy).
OK, I think I've got it.  At my advanced age, it's hard to be sure ;-D.

Thank you Eric, Marco, and Corrina.  Especially for your patience when 
more research would probably have answered a lot of things.

I'm made especially sensitive because, once on a very long ago, I asked 
a question about 'newlib' and Windows in the same sentence, and had my 
posterior handed back to me on a platter with the advice that anything 
with my name on it would be instantly disapproved by the newlib owner.


--
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