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: [129.78.64.17]
From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: -src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:32:41 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1392xTcrCgXAC98D6B0000e64b@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2001 23:32:41.0594 (UTC) FILETIME=[511055A0:01C17089]

replying to myself ... hmmm ... anyway...
>>Is this an acceptable compromise?
>
>I forgot that #3 didnt have build script outside (or did I... how could it
>be pristine source ... ummm I think I am a bit lost here).

and indeed I was... oh well...

>#4 did.
>My amendment to say that I liked #3 - if the suggestion I made to setup.exe
>would be acceptable.  I now change that to either #5 or #5a (which seem 
>like
>#4 without the package directory name?) and I will write a patch for
>setup.exe which is not default... (but can be set up to be via some means)
>once setup.exe asks where to put src. - this is assuming I have managed to
>read things correctly this time...

drawing from surrounding messages...
#3 - seems feasible.
#5 - seems like #3 but just that little bit nicer to deal with from the 
maintainers point of view, at the expense of a 1 or more files in the src 
package.

Personally I think #3 is indeed possible, but its ugly... in terms of what 
you might have to do to get it to work.  I guess that I side with #5 more 
then #3 because I would be putting each package in a seperate directory, so 
those extra files dont lead to as much crowding... If you were going to put 
them in the same directory ... those extra files would probably seem really 
over crowded, which i am guessing is why the RPM style is done, because it 
at least seperates them out a little bit.
However from my personal 1-directory-per-package viewpoint ... #5 seems 
better.
This in part is because I also like the 'buildscript as makefile' idea which 
allows automation of unpack, patch, compile, build, repackage(either src or 
bin), install) from a level outside the patched src... which just feels the 
right place for that to be happening.

>
>Gareth (may end up replying again when he realises hes completely
>confused... not just patially)
>
See ... I said so...


Gareth

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp