Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Originating-IP:	[203.29.197.73]
From:	"Gareth Pearce" <tilps AT hotmail DOT com>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF7A48 AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <3BE4D4A7 .2070900 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011104104732 DOT X17306 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <1004867892 DOT 5388 DOT 54 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3BE702C3 DOT 5010008 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1004999653 DOT 4685 DOT 20 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3BE71DF4 DOT 20802 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3BEFAA8F DOT 4020900 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3BF17502 DOT 6020902 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <006101c16cd9$8c0e8770$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <010e01c16cef$78c8be90$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF2CA1A DOT 34130B9D AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <03b901c16d51$b8f75500$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF2FE81 DOT C586876A AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <001501c16d6f$a9899c90$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF3180C DOT 8A99A5E8 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3BF5EEC6 DOT 4020803 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2001 16:31:32 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID:	<OE14CR34XtFT0D7GHzb000128aa@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	17 Nov 2001 05:31:30.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CBE9980:01C16F29]

As a not a maintainer quite yet - Might put my comment forth anyway...

I am closer to favouring 1 then 3 ... and not 2 ...
but neither is how I would naturally think of things... - thats assuming
that the package is called cygwin that is being talked about in #1
#4 - which is like #1 other then difference stated.
-src tarball contains
        cygwin/<pristine tarball, without renaming or repacking>
        cygwin/<patchfile>
        (possibly other stuff in cygwin/, if necessary - post install
scripts come to mind)
        cygwin/<build script or makefile>
     newly generated bin tarballs placed in cygwin/BUILT
     newly generated src tarballs placed in cygwin/BUILT

The process of building would probably require the construction of some
other directories, build scripts choice and also its perogative to clean
them up - and yes its sort of sounding rather makefileish ... that way you
can just patch ths source only ... or patch and compile ... or patch compile
package-bin ... or patch compile install[-strip] and finally clean
Not sure what the point of generating src tarballs is... but I left that
there...

I personally think that 3 files in one directory isnt getting too crowded...
and that all the extra directorys seem like overkill.
Then again - I also dont care about things looking like RPM or pkg
formats...

<snip the lot>

if I appear to have no clue ... thats understandable ;)
Anyway about it I can see that I am actually going to have to write proper
patches - rather then just keeping a copy of hacked files :P - all for the
best though...

Gareth Pearce

- Raw text -