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: <018501c17100$b2fae3d0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: "Gareth Pearce" , References: <3BF8385F DOT 8010606 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <02a301c17084$9b178b50$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF8B243 DOT 6090200 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <012301c170f2$90ae1990$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> Subject: Re: -src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:47:14 +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: 19 Nov 2001 13:47:14.0066 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1D6AF20:01C17100] === ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gareth Pearce" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:15 AM Subject: Re: -src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a > Hi > > umm ... Robert, am I reading this wrong or are you agreeing to meta-patches > being ugly? Yeap, they are not pretty. I've said that before too. I think that the pristine source + consistency for the user *should* outweight that. > This kind of points strongly against your own #3 and if so, > what points do you have against #5 ? I had none. If you read carefully I said "cool, what about splitting out that top level script if they are all the same (and with meta patches they should be)." Rob