Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <011201c16cf0$bc1c80e0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>,
   "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF7A48 AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>	<3BE4D4A7	.2070900 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> 	<20011104104732 DOT X17306 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>	<1004867892 DOT 5388 DOT 54 DOT camel AT lifelesswks>  <3BE702C3 DOT 5010008 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1004999653 DOT 4685 DOT 20 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3BE71DF4 DOT 20802 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3BEFAA8F DOT 4020900 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3BF17502 DOT 6020902 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <006101c16cd9$8c0e8770$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Subject: Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:42:53 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2001 09:48:35.0074 (UTC) FILETIME=[86FD2620:01C16CF1]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
> To: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:31 AM
> Subject: Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
>
>
> > Has anybody had a chance to take a look at this stuff yet?
Comments?
> >
> > Possibly reactions;
> > 1) I like style 1 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard
> > 1a) [1], but with modifications
> > 2) I like style 2 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard
> > 2a) [2], but with modifications
> > 3) what the **** are you doing?  What's wrong with what we've got?
> > 4) Yeah, we need to change something, but both of these examples
suck
> > 5) [obligatory] why don't we use rpm? dpkg?
> > 6) other


4 is me.

I must have communicated very ineffectively. I'd like to address some
points from that web page..
===
>1) as maintainer, mucking with
>the so-called "pristine" source archive so that it unpacks into
the -${REL}
>directory is counterintuitive.

I never suggested this. I suggested that the patch be versioned, not the
source tree. The source tree versioning came up in a discuss with
respect to a potential new package, and our -current- system requires
the source tree versioning.

>(2) It can't clean up after itself (you
>can't 'rm -rf <srcdir>' when you're running
'<srcdir>/CYGWIN-PATCHES/foo.sh'.

I don't recall this being a goal, but fair enough.

>(3) unpacking and applying the patch by hand is annoying -- it'd be
nice
>if this could be automated.  Setup could do this for us, but that
requires
>mods to setup.  Primary goal here is NO changes to setup.  It just
>unpacks the -src archive -- e.g. current behavior -- and does NOT
>unpack any internal archives or try to apply patches for us.

I don't see how style 1 is any better than style 2 other than the fact
you are suppling a canned script to patch the source. IMO we're better
off with a canned script that can patch the source for _any_ package
given the package name.

In fact thats what having the patch outside the source dir was _all_
about in my discussion.

I've sent you privately an archive that fits what I was visualizing
during our discussions, and it is a little different from 1 or 2. If you
could put that up for review with the rest, that would be nice.

Ideally in fact, with setup to help, the archive I've sent you would be
two separate archives - the vendors and the patch. But I haven't altered
setup to do that (but have no objection to doing so). In fact I've no
objection to enlisting setup for a lot of stuff now the categories has
hit the ground.

Rob