This is the mail archive of the 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?

I think that it some cases it may be needed and solve some packaging problems - 
I believe tetex is one of those cases (hence, IMHO, it should not be forbidden
to do so). OTOH, even though most people will not be interested in the binaries
in the pcre package (pcregrep and pcretest) I don't think this warrants making
a non-standard pcre-bin package..

IOW, I think exceptions should be possible if warranted. Whether or not aspell
and XFree warrant the exception is up to their maintainers to ponder..

JMO (Just My Opinion)


On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:21:33AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:17:44AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >I hate to do this at this late point (and I *really* hate it when people
> >do it to me) but I didn't notice the slightly nonstandard practice of
> >naming the binary 'aspell-bin'.  I'd like to change that.  Otherwise
> >we have a base package which only contains source, which is also
> >unusual.  I'd prefer to "mv aspell-{bin-,}0.50.3-1.tar.bz2" and
> >put it at the top level of the aspell directory and move everything else
> >underneath it.
> >
> >Gareth, do you have a problem with that?
> I just re-noticed that tetex also has a -bin package.
> 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.
> XFree86 also does this and I am, again, not sure why it's needed.
> cgf

		-- Bob Violence

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