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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3BA68DB0.20308@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:56:32 -0400 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010713 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Corinna Vinschen Subject: Re: [RFD] ncurses update References: <3BA3A5F4 DOT 8010100 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010917182915 DOT C10081 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3BA63755 DOT 9040406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010917210951 DOT H10081 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:48:05PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > >>Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >> >>>On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 03:03:16PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This is an ABI change, requiring the DLL number to be bumped, and apps >>>>to be recompiled. (e.g. we now have cygncurses6.dll, etc) >>>> >>>> >>>Somehow I don't like the `6' here for a ncurses-5.2 version but >>>if we can't avoid that... >>> >> >>Well, remember that library version != package version, esp. according >>to the libtool guys. It's only a misunderstanding of this >>[...] >> > > Oerks, it's ok. I shouldn't have complained... Yeah, but now my reasoning is in the archives, I can point people to msgXXXXX when questions (inevitably) arise. > >>>>b) the new libncurses5 package? (should I just put the old DLLs inside >>>>ncurses-5.2-6 package? should the new DLL's themselves be split from >>>>the ncurses package and put in libncurses6 package?) What about the >>>>source code naming difference (libncurses5 != ncurses)? >>>> >>>> >>>Splitting is ok but what about just naming the file `ncurses5-5.2-1'? >>>The package would be nearer to the other ncurses package in setup's >>>package dialog. >>> >> >>No objections here -- but Red Hat doesn't do it that way (nor does any >>other RPM-based distro). Don't we want to be like Red Hat? Also, then you'd have "ncurses5" and "ncurses6" -- which contain just the dll's, along with "ncurses" which contains the executables and man pages. That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. libncursesX + ncurses makes more sense, IMO. (Besides, once categories are working, these will all be grouped in some "system libraries" category which is a much smaller list than the full list of pacakges...) >> > > I can't see a reason to follow like sheeps. We have our own > packaging scheme which we decide about. Each Linux distro > uses a different layout and we don't even have a Linux distro... > :-) I'm thinking of the following (Chris, will the setup.ini generator script be able to figure this out?:) latest/ncurses/ncurses-5.2-6.tar.bz2 latest/ncurses/ncurses-5.2-6-src.tar.bz2 latest/ncurses/ncurses-5.2.5.tar.gz latest/ncurses/ncurses-5.2-5-src.tar.gz latest/ncurses/libncurses5/libncurses5-5.2-1.tar.bz2 latest/ncurses/libncurses5/libncurses5-5.2-1-src.tar.bz2 latest/ncurses/libncurses6/libncurses6-5.2-1.tar.bz2 latest/ncurses/libncurses6/libncurses6-5.2-1-src.tar.bz2 latest/terminfo/terminfo-5.2-1.tar.bz2 latest/terminfo/terminfo-5.2-1-src.tar.bz2 libncurses5-5.2-1-src.tar.bz2 just contains a single file: libncurses5-5.2/README which sez "go get ncurses-5.2-5-src.tar.gz" libncurses6-5.2-1-src.tar.bz2 just contains a single file: libncurses6-5.2/README which sez "go get ncurses-5.2-6-src.tar.bz2" I want to put the lib* versions into subdirs of ncurses, because they come from the same "true" source. However, terminfo is an actual fork, so it gets its own toplevel dir. Okay? --Chuck