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: <3CBF0AC5.2010506@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:04:53 -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: 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> <3CBEDBBA DOT 5040000 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020418170631 DOT G29277 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3CBEE9DA DOT 7050005 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020418160350 DOT GB32528 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 
>  From my point of view, when I download the source rpm for a package, I
> always find it rather annoying that I have to apply patches by hand.


Well, for rpm's, you can always do:

   rpm -bp <specfile>

which will unpack the tarball and apply the various patches.  Kinda like 
'foo-VER-REL.sh prep' in style 3.

>  I'd
> rather just have the latest, greatest version of things extracted into
> a directory where I can type "configure/make" without any extra thinking
> involved.


Well, yeah -- but both style 1 and style 2 presuppose that the cygwin 
chagnes have already been applied.  Only style 3 ships the unpatched 
source.  Style 1 just happens to include a "reveral patch" inside the 
tarball; that's the main difference between it and style 2.

However, as I recall, the main arguments (way back when) for including 
the reversal patch were basically a compromise between "I wanna unpack 
and GO" and "but where's the pristine source?".  The "where's the 
pristine source" crowd (me, Robert, etc) have style 3, if we REALLY care.

So, there's an argument for (!1),2,3...


> My 1c.  Now back to this resurrected discusion...


Sigh.

--Chuck