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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <06a501c16e2a$18a71750$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: "Gareth Pearce" , References: Subject: Re: nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:06:01 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2001 23:04:11.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[D642A190:01C16E29] 1) IMO the setup.hint should have :'s. They are optional, but being the same as setup.ini would be nice. 2) your nano-info.sh script is misleadingly-named - (it's also chmoding nano.exe) Perhaps nano-postinstall.sh 3) I'd suggest ( cd /usr/info ; for i in nano.info ; do install-info $i --dir-file=dir ; done ) instead of installing _every_ info file in the directory, as that could get quite slow :]. As for recompressing the source, I don't really want to get into the game of *fixing* packages. That simply won't scale as the package count scales. I'll happily vet packages from first-time contributors though (as I just did). However, as there are changes to this just-around-the corner, when Chuck and I convince one another :] I think it'll be fine as is. Or you could change it, as you'll have to recompress the tarball anyway to get the updated install script into the source. Drop a new setup.hint and updated tarballs in your web page, and barring anyone's objecting to the package being included by tomorrow I'll upload it for you. One last thing, and at this point I don't think it matters, you don't include info on how to recreate the binary package and source package in your README. I don't think this is an issue, as long as you do document that before handing the maintenance to someone else (thinking long term here). Rob === ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gareth Pearce" To: Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:53 PM Subject: nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :) > Hi > > decided to go with 2 ... since no one else felt the desire to comment... > > anyway... > > http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gpea0679/nano/ > > contains nano 1.0.6 src and binary - patched, no dir file and a postinstall > script - which is a copy of the indent one modified minorly. Also a > setup.hint file - which I think is right... > > well anyway ... tell me what to fix up ... and it shall be done. > > Gareth >