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.html please read
From: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Roth, Kevin P." <KPRoth AT MarathonOil DOT com>
Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: 
	<6EB31774D39507408D04392F40A10B2BC1FDBD AT FDYEXC202 DOT mgroupnet DOT com>
References: <6EB31774D39507408D04392F40A10B2BC1FDBD AT FDYEXC202 DOT mgroupnet DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1004744482.9086.59.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15 (Preview Release)
Date: 03 Nov 2001 10:58:45 +1100
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2001 00:03:01.0417 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7274990:01C163FA]

On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 04:23, Roth, Kevin P. wrote:
> 1)
> Under "Package File Naming", I see "The first release of a
> package for a given vendor version may optionally skip the 
> suffix". I take that to mean that
>     cURL-7.9-1.tar.gz
> and
>     cURL-7.9.tar.gz
> are both acceptable? Is that true?

Historically is has been. I'm in favour of requiring the -1, but I don't
want things to be 'too hard'.

> 2)
> Under "Making Packages", I think the "standard" for binary
> packages is to leave off the initial "/" on filenames 

Correct. Thank you.

 
> 3) file -> directory typo

Thanks

> 4)
> The oft-referenced texinfo-4.0 example on the cygwin ml
> includes the specific commands that can be used to
> "unapply" the foo-vendor-suffix.patch file; could you
> add those commands to this file?

Well, those commands depend on the exact patch syntax used. I've added a
set that *should* be ok. 

> 
> 5)
> Again under "Making packages", you said that the patch
> file should extract to /usr/src/foo-vendor-suffix.patch.
> The texinfo example says it should go at
> /usr/src/foo-vendor-suffix/CYGWIN-PATCHES/foo-vendor-suffix.patch.
> 
> Which place is "correct"?

Ah, I'm changing things here. I think that having it 1 level up from the
patched source tree is _much_ easier, otherwise your patch really
_cannot_ clean the tree properly - because it is in it.
 
Thoughts from everyone?


> 6) 
> Again, not to be nit-picky; however your example of 
> "foo-vendor-suffix" is a bit misleading. Most packages
> use "package-version-suffix", and don't (necessarily)
> mention the "Vendor" in the package's name. I suggest
> using the more generic but hopefully more accurate
> "package-version-suffix" verbage throughout the doc.

Ok, I'll do this at a more relaxed time. foo-vendor-suffix came from the
earlier in the article definitions - pacakge "foo", vendor version
"vendor"...
 
Rob