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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: -bin packages?

From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke at gnu dot org>
To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:08:01 +0200
Subject: Re: -bin packages?
Organization: Jan at Appel
References: <16224.57356.609720.972967@panix3.panix.com><20030912113130.GG9981@cygbert.vinschen.de><16225.47261.577664.992869@panix3.panix.com><20030912131347.GK3362@linux_rln.harvest><16225.54401.128298.661226@panix3.panix.com><20030912151713.GP3362@linux_rln.harvest><BAY2-DAV50Qez1enAqp00001525@hotmail.com><20030918144647.GB7208@redhat.com><20030918154028.GB21770@linux_rln.harvest><20030918151744.GB8435@redhat.com> <20030919142133.GA18691@redhat.com>

Christopher Faylor writes:

> What do people think about this?  I would like to be consistent in package
> naming and it seems like most packages put their binaries in a package sans
> -bin.  There is an empty tetex package but I don't understand the need
> to complicate things this way.

I just copied Debian's package layout, except that Cygwin needs the
'root' package.  Tetex is built from two source packages, which
complicates matters a bit.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

References:
- Aspell ... (ready?)
  - From: Gareth Pearce
- Re: Aspell ... (ready?)
  - From: Christopher Faylor
- Re: Aspell ... (ready?)
  - From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak
- Re: Aspell ... (ready?)
  - From: Christopher Faylor
- -bin packages?
  - From: Christopher Faylor

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