Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/18/05:09:55
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:21:57PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html
> >
> > Wow. Insightful email.
>
> as usual...
>
> > Well, I guess I haven't been paying much attention to your and Robert's
> > packages. I'd forgotten that I'd suggested that we package as we see
> > fit and foolishly looked to what I supposed was the final word on the
> > subject.
>
> It's been a bit of a mess. In my original email to this thread, I
> summarized the three packaging styles (I won't call them standards) that are
> currently, actually, in use.
>
> That doesn't mean I think having 3 different styles -- only one of which is
> actually documented somewhere official -- is a good idea. OTOH, since the
> longwinded discussion last November (and its resolution sans an actual
> standard), Robert and I (and a few others) have been "standardizing" one way
> (which was a compromise in and of itself). So there are only 3 extant
> styles, not 47. Which is something.
If I'm looking over a package for inclusion I'm currently accepting
two styles:
package-ver-subver/
...
or
package-ver-subver.patch
package-ver-subver.sh
package-ver.tar.[bg]z[2*] <-- The pristine source
Can we agree to use and document only these styles?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -