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
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:06:31 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygapp <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
Message-ID: <20020418170631.G29277@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: cygapp <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
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> <3CBEDBBA DOT 5040000 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CBEDBBA.5040000@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:44:10AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 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.

I'm talking about style 2.  I'm using it for my packages.  I don't
see a need that the Cygwin package needs the patch from the original
version.  The pristine source is available elsewhere.  We're
responsible for the Cygwin version.  In the long run the maintainer
of a package should try to get his/her changes back into the main
trunk anyway (I know, I never did that for inetutils).  So the
whole point is to get rid of the extra Cygwin patch and to offer
the pristine sources anyway since they already contain the Cygwin
patches.  E.g the openssh sources are the original sources, just
repacked to untar into the correct source dir according to our
"standards".

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.