This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps 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: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area


On Apr  3 20:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> [responding to the thread which started it all]
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:35:51PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >- We create a ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin-1.7 dir.
> >
> >- Under that dir, we create the full release directory structure as it
> >  exists in the parallel cygwin dir, except for the "cygwin" itself.
> 
> So far so good.
> 
> >- All files in the original release dir are hardlinked into their
> >  matching spot in the cygwin-1.7 dir.
> 
> I don't like hardlinking.  It's too easy to have unintended side
> effects.  I think I'd rather just symlink the directories in the new
> release area then rm the symlink and create a new directory when it's
> time to populate the directory with a 1.7 version.

In theory I agree, but it lets more room for mistakes.  It's very easy
to have a new package and just move the files to the directory, instead
of checking if the directory is a symlink or a real dir.  If the dir
is a real dir from the start, you just dump the new package into the
dir and remove the oldest files and be done.

Anyway, it's nothing I really get excited about.

> >- The "cygwin" subdir gets created and filled with only the first Cygwin
> >  DLL 1.7.0 tar files.
> >
> >- Chris starts a second upset which creates the setup.ini file in
> >  the cygwin-1.7 dir.
> 
> I can do this but on top of this, I'd actually like to implement my plan
> for allowing people to control their own directories.  I hadn't thought
> about adding a 1.7 directory but it should still be doable.
> 
> If we don't do this, I think we'll be awash in a sea of RFU's and me
> pulling what little hair I have left out over upset errors.
> 
> I'd also like to finally have a package lint program which could be
> invoked automatically.  Anyone want to write one of those?
> 
> I don't want to necessarily gate 1.7 on these things but a package lint
> is really long overdue, IMO.  You could even write one that took a
> setup.ini as input to make sure that the setup.hint was correct to help
> stem the tide of upset errors.

That's a good idea.  Unfortunately I don't have the time right now...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


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