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: <3BF17502.6020902@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:31:14 -0500
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: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

--Chuck

Charles Wilson wrote:

> Okay, I put my money where my mouth is.  See
> 
> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/packaging/
> 
> I've implemented two slightly different src packaging schemes: the one 
> I've been advocating, and a slightly modified version of the scheme 
> Robert likes.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> STYLE 1 (Chuck):
> -src archive contains an inner "pristine" tarball in cygwin/SOURCES/ 
> along with a patch in the same directory.  Since setup will 
> automagically unpack -src archives into /usr/src, that means we have 
> "/usr/src/cygwin/SOURCES/".  Also, the -src archive contains a build 
> script in cygwin/SPECS/.
> 
> So, -src contains 3 files, total.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> STYLE 2 (Robert):
> 
> Since Corinna suggested that any scheme uses the RPM-ish directories, 
> I've adapted Robert's debian-like scheme to fit that structure 
> (basically, just put the src tarball and the patch in cygwin/SOURCES, 
> but the README instructs to unpack, patch, and build under cygwin/BUILD 
> rather than *right there* like debian does).
> 
> When you unpack the inner (pristine) archive and apply the patch, you 
> get a "rules" file (shell script, not makefile, in this example) in 
> CYGWIN-PATCHES.  I'm pretending that <srctop>/CYGWIN-PATCHES/ is like 
> debian's <srctop>/debian/.
> 
> -src contains 2 files, total.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> These differences don't sound like much, but when you get down to it, 
> it's actually pretty profound.  Since we don't (yet) have an outside 
> tool to handle unpacking the inner archive and applying the patch, 
> Robert's scheme is unwieldy IMO.  This leads to lots of little 
> differences in how you rebuild the -src archive, naming (and dir 
> structure) of the "pristine" inner archive, etc.
> 
> Until we actually HAVE a dpkg tool (or unless we change setup.exe to do 
> more than just unpack into /usr/src) I like style 1 better.
> 
> Anyway, go to the URL, download, check it out.  I'm going to bed.
> 
> --Chuck
>