Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3CBDBDCB.8EAC2BD6@lapo.it> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:24:11 +0200 From: Lapo Luchini X-Accept-Language: it,en,fr,es,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mailing List: CygWin Subject: Re: strange source packaging? References: <3CBDA9CF DOT 877BBFA4 AT lapo DOT it> <3CBDBBAE DOT 3040802 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > As to why the .gz(or.bz2) compressed "original source code" tarball is > included inside an .bz2 -src package, when the internal tarball can't > really be compressed further: it's the original. If I ungzip it, and > then bzip it, then it isn't the original version EXACTLY as distributed > by the upstream folks... > > Hope that helps explain it. Thanks for the long explanation (it seems that there is always some part of this ML that doesn't hit my eyes, even if I read it all ^_^)... anyway the base is "exact original is preferred upon size" if I got it right.. right? (even if a gunzip dest would alter in no way the tar and I see no diffrence between 'dest' and 'source' in any pratical way (uhm.. people )... but inter-programmer politics is not my concern, your answer fully satisfied my curiosity) Thanks, Lapo PS: I can see at least a motivation for using "exact original package" now: so that people can use md5sum and get convinced that the included file is really exactly the original... -- Lapo 'Raist' Luchini lapo AT lapo DOT it (PGP & X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)