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
Subject: RE: package offering: gnupg
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:15:59 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-ID: <FAC87D7C874EAB46A847604DA4FD5A642075E2@crtsmail.corp.riotinto.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Billinghurst, David (CRTS)" <David DOT Billinghurst AT riotinto DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2002 01:17:12.0274 (UTC) FILETIME=[621FAB20:01C20F53]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g591Gth13754

I'd prefer the re-autotool stuff to be part of the user build process.
I was going to propose this for ImageMagick, as it reduces the patches
from approx 1 Mb down to 2 lines.  Much easier to understand.



-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Wourms [mailto:nwourms AT netscape DOT net]
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2002 4:45 
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: package offering: gnupg


Hmm...

I think Chuck better look at the buildscript, there seem to be a couple 
of (unnecessary?)kludges throughout the script.  For instance, 
re-autoconfilizing the autoscripts shouldn't be a necessary step in the 
user build process.  You should do that ahead of time, delete the 
autom4ate.cache and other garbage, then make a diff against the 
results...  There are a few other things that could be improved in the 
source package ( but I'll leave it to the veteran package maintainers to 
comment ), but AFAICT the binary package works fine.

Cheers,
Nicholas

>I think we'd all like to get this in the distribution.  Has anyone reviewed
>the packaging?
>
>cgf
>  
>