Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/04/18/11:17:06
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:44:10AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Both "style 1" and "style 2" in my original email obey this. The
> difference is that "style 2" packages -- gcc, binutils, make, etc --
> don't have
> package-ver-subver/CYGWIN-PATCHES/a-patch
> in fact, they don't have 'a-patch' at all. They are, in effect, forks
> of the antecedent project. There is no way, given just
> gcc-2.95.3-5-src.tar.bz2, to "revert to the 'original' source" -- short
> of also downloading the 2.95.3 source from www.gcc.org, unpacking both,
> and doing 'diff -r cygwin-version-of-gcc gnu-version-of-gcc'.
>
> Granted, new packages should never be style 2. But style 2 is in use.
I'm talking about style 2. I'm using it for my packages. I don't
see a need that the Cygwin package needs the patch from the original
version. The pristine source is available elsewhere. We're
responsible for the Cygwin version. In the long run the maintainer
of a package should try to get his/her changes back into the main
trunk anyway (I know, I never did that for inetutils). So the
whole point is to get rid of the extra Cygwin patch and to offer
the pristine sources anyway since they already contain the Cygwin
patches. E.g the openssh sources are the original sources, just
repacked to untar into the correct source dir according to our
"standards".
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -