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: <3BF2FE81.C586876A@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:30:09 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
CC: 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> <3BF17502 DOT 6020902 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <006101c16cd9$8c0e8770$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <010e01c16cef$78c8be90$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF2CA1A DOT 34130B9D AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <03b901c16d51$b8f75500$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)

Robert Collins wrote:

> > You merely changed the name of the internal tarball slightly.
> 
> Correct, because it should have been the vendors tarball as is.

Yeah, but didn't "we" decide that src packages should unpack into
<pkg>-<ver>-<rel>?  I've been making my packages (for the past year or
more) unpack into <pkg>-<ver> regardless of what <rel> was, and
distinctly remember concluding that I was "wrong" according to consensus
on the list.

However, a pristine tarball will always unpack into <pkg>-<ver> (unless
you're jpeg, in which case you unpack into jpeg<ver>.  Or unless you're
tiff, in which case you unpack into tiff-v<ver>. Sigh).

In my style 1, I allowed the pristine tarball to unpack however it
liked, and then explicitly mv it to the cygwin-approved "pkg-ver-rel/"
during the "prep" stage.

In style 2 that option wasn't available (you have to patch by hand, so
you don't have the script, so there's really no "prep" stage).  So, I
repacked the pristine tarball without any other changes so that it would
unpack into the approved "pkg-ver-rel" directory.

Your style 3 ignores the previous consensus, and allows the pristine
tarball to unpack into whatever dir the upstream folks used.

I don't have a problem with that, but it is contrary to the
previously-discussed decision.

> I didn't realise I'd altered the README. Oops. I've been maintaining
> that what I'm talking about is orthogonal to the package building at
> this point. However I've updated the script & readme to use the
> structure I have in the tarball. I've also mailed you another style3
> tarball... built via 'mktemp-1.3.1-1.sh all'

Sure -- they are orthogonal subjects until you bring a human into the
process.  Who has to unpack the -src dist, and then build it.  As soon
as you try to give that human instructions on unpacking/building, you
create a link between the packaging and building -- thru the README file
and the .sh/rules/make/script.

Okay, all three versions are up at
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/packaging/

They've been renamed to 
  style1-*
  style2-*
  style3-*

(I made no other changes to style1-* and style2-*; internally they are
the same as before).

The styleX-mktemp-1.3.1*.README and styleX-mktemp-1.3.1*.sh files are
extracted from the tarballs for easier viewing, but the "dists" consist
only of the .tar.bz2 and -src.tar.bz2 files.

Really, Robert, I don't see much difference between style2 and style3:

  style2: unpacks into cygwin/SOURCES/(repackaged-but-pristine-tarball)
                       cygwin/SOURCES/patch-file
          build script creates -src.tar.bz2 in cygwin/SRPMS
          build script creates .tar.bz2 in cygwin/RPMS
          pristine tarball is repacked ONLY to comply with the
"pkg-src-rel" requirement previously discussed.  If you abandon that,
then there's no need to repack (which eliminates this difference between
style2 and style3)

  style3: unpacks HERE. (e.g. no embedded paths).
          build script creates -src.tar.bz2 HERE (overwrites downloaded
version?)
          build script creates .tar.bz2 HERE

READMEs and build scripts differ only to support these ^^^^ differences;
otherwise, they are the same.

--Chuck