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
Subject: Re: setup testers wanted
From: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <3BE2578B.1050001@ece.gatech.edu>
References: 
	<1004664322 DOT 5225 DOT 19 DOT camel AT lifelesswks>	<20011102031557 DOT 74466 DOT qmail AT web20009.
	mail.yahoo.com>	<20011101224427 DOT B7348 AT redhat DOT com> 
	<3BE250D7 DOT 5050501 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1004689036 DOT 6940 DOT 7 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> 
	<3BE2578B DOT 1050001 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15 (Preview Release)
Date: 02 Nov 2001 19:36:37 +1100
Message-Id: <1004690220.6899.11.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2001 08:41:17.0393 (UTC) FILETIME=[2362EC10:01C1637A]

On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 19:21, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> 

> > Oh, the other point: There's no need for the tarballs to change if they
> > current extract into the correct location. (/ IIRC)
> 
> 
> Well, the *names* need to change.  Currently, they are named cryptically 
> like "Xbin.tgz" and "Xf100.tgz" and "Xetc.tgz".  No version numbers -- 
> and the source package is monolithic, even though there are many 
> "binary" packages.  It'll probably be necessary to have "fake" src 
> packages (see libncurses5-X.Y-Z-src.tar.bz2) for most of these, and then 
> just one "real" src package.

Yup. Thats simply a case of a few mv commands though, right?

> Also, it is unclear whether the current division into these specific 
> separate binary tarballs is the appropriate division for official 
> setup.exe-style packages -- although keeping the current divisions would 
> be the easiest thing to do.

I believe that the division is created by an XFree86 official script,
and that they therefore correspond very closely to what
debian/redhat/suse et al distribute.
 
> My point: work is needed, and decisions must be made.  And that ought to 
> wait until after the new setup is unleashed and stabilized -- but that's 
> what you said in the other message, anyway.  So we agree.

Yup :}. Ok, I think setup's ready... what next? <grin>

Rob