This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion


On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 05:11:56PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 04:21:07PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > 
> >>My proposal (revised)
> >>   Use the standard RPM tree (SOURCES, BUILD, SPEC, RPMS, SRPMS)
> >>   -src is a tarball which contains
> >>     SOURCES/foo-VER-REL-orig.tar.bz2
> >>     SOURCES/foo-VER-REL.diff (creates the cgywin README)
> >>     SOURCES/foo-VER-REL-X.diff (if necessary)
> >>     SPECS/foo-VER-REL.*
> >>       .spec or .sh or .rule or whatever.
> >>   setup unpacks this into /usr/src/cygwin.
> >>   the end.  Nothing else is specified yet.
> >>
> > 
> > Your proposal has a disadvantage:  The src package isn't
> > compatible to the current packaging scheme.
> > 
> > ==> All packages have to be repacked.  A clear no-no, IMO.
> 
> 
> No, it IS compatible -- since you unpack the -src tarball at the 
> "usr/src/cygwin/ level, OLD style src tarballs will create this:
> 
> /usr/src/cygwin/foo-VER/*
> 
> NEW style src tarballs will create this:
> 
> /usr/src/cygwin/SOURCES/foo-VER-orig.tar.bz2
> etc.

Hmm, sounds ok.

> Granted, *ideally* you'd unpack new -src tarballs at the /usr/src/cygwin/ 
> level, and you'd unpack old -src tarballs at the /usr/src/ level, but I 
> don't think my way is too terrible...

No.  Repacking would be terrible.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]