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
X-Originating-IP: [203.29.197.73]
From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
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$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF2FE81 DOT C586876A AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <001501c16d6f$a9899c90$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF3180C DOT 8A99A5E8 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3BF5EEC6 DOT 4020803 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <OE14CR34XtFT0D7GHzb000128aa AT hotmail DOT com> <3BF5FAF4 DOT 7090709 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Subject: Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 17:11:17 +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
Message-ID: <OE53ZD948aiQdYlTIka000128ed@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2001 06:11:16.0719 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAC34FF0:01C16F2E]

> Gareth Pearce wrote:
>
> > As a not a maintainer quite yet - Might put my comment forth anyway...
> >
> > I am closer to favouring 1 then 3 ... and not 2 ...
> > but neither is how I would naturally think of things... - thats assuming
> > that the package is called cygwin that is being talked about in #1
> > #4 - which is like #1 other then difference stated.
>
>
> Nope.  cygwin/ is a standin for redhat/

ahh ... then change my suggested to cygwin being the name of the package. -
and I dont like either 1 or 3 all that much in that case... - ofcourse i can
live with either ...
my thoughts are
1 is directory deep - and crowded in a file sense
3 is similarly crowded in a filesense
my way is sort of deep(similarly deep to 1 if installed in usr/src/cygwin
instead of usr/src) ... but not crowded in a file sense... - only a
directory sense
having pristine tarball and patch + other things ... for every package ...
in one directory ... seems way too much file crowding... Personal opinion is
that file crowding is a Lot worse then directory crowding.

#4 (mark 2)
thus i say the following
 -src tarball contains
         <pkgname>/<pristine tarball, without renaming or repacking>
         <okgname>/<patchfile>
         (possibly other stuff in <pkgname>/, if necessary - post install
scripts come to mind)
         <pkgname>/<build script or makefile>
      newly generated bin tarballs placed in <pkgname>/BUILT
      newly generated src tarballs placed in <pkgname>/BUILT

unpacked into usr/src or usr/src/cygwin/ - whichever ... doesnt matter much
from my view.
if it was usr/local/src then definitely cygwin/ ... but since its not ... I
wouldnt care.
>
> Most of these comments ^^^ seem to be based on the misconception that
there
> would be oodles of SOURCES, BUILD etc directories -- one for each unpacked
> -src.  Not so.  Like this:

yeap ... I can see that now - but I dont like that way either.

*shrug* I will live whatever way gets decided ... but 1 2 and 3 all just
seem ... wrong ... to my naive mind.

Maybe I can at least give another option for both of you to agree on not
likeing ;)

Gareth