Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3CBEDBBA.5040000@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:44:10 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
References: <20020417210033 DOT GB20207 AT redhat DOT com> <49269 DOT 66 DOT 32 DOT 89 DOT 136 DOT 1019089317 DOT squirrel AT secure2 DOT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020418110943 DOT D24938 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Corinna Vinschen wrote:


> If I'm looking over a package for inclusion I'm currently accepting
> two styles:
> 
>   package-ver-subver/
>     ...


Both "style 1" and "style 2" in my original email obey this.  The 
difference is that "style 2" packages -- gcc, binutils, make, etc -- 
don't have
   package-ver-subver/CYGWIN-PATCHES/a-patch
in fact, they don't have 'a-patch' at all.  They are, in effect, forks 
of the antecedent project.   There is no way, given just 
gcc-2.95.3-5-src.tar.bz2, to "revert to the 'original' source" -- short 
of also downloading the 2.95.3 source from www.gcc.org, unpacking both, 
and doing 'diff -r cygwin-version-of-gcc gnu-version-of-gcc'.

Granted, new packages should never be style 2.  But style 2 is in use.


> or
> 
>   package-ver-subver.patch
>   package-ver-subver.sh
>   package-ver.tar.[bg]z[2*]   <-- The pristine source
> 
> Can we agree to use and document only these styles?


The question is, should I document all styles in use, or only those 
styles which are acceptable for new packages?

I could argue either way.

--Chuck