Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3CBDDB88.3060406@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:31:04 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
CC: cygwin AT hack DOT kampbjorn DOT com
Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
References: <3CBDA9CF DOT 877BBFA4 AT lapo DOT it> <20020417181926 DOT GD16703 AT redhat DOT com> <3CBDC900 DOT 8000908 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020417192537 DOT GA18394 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>Chris, are you disagreeing with this post 
>><http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-04/msg00298.html>, or repudiating 
>>
> 
> I'm referring to this passage in http://cygwin.com/setup.html:
> 
>   * Source packages are extracted in /usr/src.  On extraction, the tar
>   file should put the sources in a directory with the same name as the
>   package tar ball minus the -src.tar.bz2 part:
> 
>     boffo-1.0-1/Makefile.in
>     boffo-1.0-1/README
>     boffo-1.0-1/configure
>     boffo-1.0-1/configure.in
>     etc...
> 
> That is not the case for wget.


And it is not the case for the other 20+ packages I listed.  Because the 
passage on setup.html to which you refer was written prior to the 
discussion last November about -src packaging.

As I recall, the your final word on the matter -- before the thread 
degenerated into yet another "We need an 'install all' option in setup" 
discussion -- was (more or less) "whatever.  All these proposals sound 
fine.  As long as it makes sense to the maintainer himself":
   http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html

Since last November, ALL of my packages, and most of Robert's and a few 
others, have been like this:
   foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 contains
     foo-VER.tar.[gz|bz2] -- whatever the upstream folks distribute
     foo-VER-REL.patch
     foo-VER-REL.sh
   and that's it.  I'm even a mildly annoyed when Corinna insists that 
(oldstyle) -src packages MUST unpack into foo-VER-REL/ instead of 
foo-VER/ since MY packages -- as agreed last November -- contain the 
pristine upstream sources.  And the upstream maintainers know *nothing* 
about our release numbers.

If "gzip -dc foo.tar.gz | bzip2 > foo.tar.bz2" is a marginal "is it 
'pristine' or not" case, then

   tar xvzf foo-VER.tar.gz
   mv foo-VER foo-VER-REL
   tar cvjf foo-VER???.tar.bz2(*)  foo-VER-REL/
   tar cvjf foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 foo-VER???.tar.bz2 foo-VER-REL.patch 
foo-VER-REL.sh

(*)foo-VER???.tar.bz2 is definitely NOT the pristine source.  Its 
internal dirname has changed, as well as the tarball name, and 
compression type.  And what the hell do I call it?

I can't name it 'foo-VER-REL.tar.bz2' because that's the name of the 
binary package.

I can't call it 'foo-VER.tar.bz2' because then I'll have multiple versions:
   the 'original' upstream one -- unpacks into foo-VER/
   two or three somewhat modified ones, depending on how many releases I 
create:  -1's foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-1/, -2's 
foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-2, etc.  But, each contains exactly 
the same code.

I can't call it 'foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2' because that's the name of my 
larger -src tarball, which contains the "pristine"(hah!) tarball + 
.patch and .sh.

So I leave it foo-VER.tar.[bz2|gz], leave it so that it unpacks into 
foo-VER, just like the upstream folks made it in the first place.

--Chuck