Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:00:33 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT hack DOT kampbjorn DOT com
Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
Message-ID: <20020417210033.GB20207@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT hack DOT kampbjorn DOT com
References: <3CBDA9CF DOT 877BBFA4 AT lapo DOT it> <20020417181926 DOT GD16703 AT redhat DOT com> <3CBDC900 DOT 8000908 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020417192537 DOT GA18394 AT redhat DOT com> <3CBDDB88 DOT 3060406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CBDDB88.3060406@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:31:04PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>As I recall, the your final word on the matter -- before the thread 
>degenerated into yet another "We need an 'install all' option in setup" 
>discussion -- was (more or less) "whatever.  All these proposals sound 
>fine.  As long as it makes sense to the maintainer himself":
>  http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html

Wow.  Insightful email.

>Since last November, ALL of my packages, and most of Robert's and a few 
>others, have been like this:
>  foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 contains
>    foo-VER.tar.[gz|bz2] -- whatever the upstream folks distribute
>    foo-VER-REL.patch
>    foo-VER-REL.sh
>  and that's it.  I'm even a mildly annoyed when Corinna insists that 
>(oldstyle) -src packages MUST unpack into foo-VER-REL/ instead of 
>foo-VER/ since MY packages -- as agreed last November -- contain the 
>pristine upstream sources.  And the upstream maintainers know *nothing* 
>about our release numbers.

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.

I'll just leave the documentation as is so we can have this truly delightful
conversation again in a couple of months.

>If "gzip -dc foo.tar.gz | bzip2 > foo.tar.bz2" is a marginal "is it 
>'pristine' or not" case, then
>
>  tar xvzf foo-VER.tar.gz
>  mv foo-VER foo-VER-REL
>  tar cvjf foo-VER???.tar.bz2(*)  foo-VER-REL/
>  tar cvjf foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 foo-VER???.tar.bz2 foo-VER-REL.patch 
>foo-VER-REL.sh
>
>(*)foo-VER???.tar.bz2 is definitely NOT the pristine source.  Its 
>internal dirname has changed, as well as the tarball name, and 
>compression type.  And what the hell do I call it?
>
>I can't name it 'foo-VER-REL.tar.bz2' because that's the name of the 
>binary package.
>
>I can't call it 'foo-VER.tar.bz2' because then I'll have multiple versions:
>  the 'original' upstream one -- unpacks into foo-VER/
>  two or three somewhat modified ones, depending on how many releases I 
>create:  -1's foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-1/, -2's 
>foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-2, etc.  But, each contains exactly 
>the same code.
>
>I can't call it 'foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2' because that's the name of my 
>larger -src tarball, which contains the "pristine"(hah!) tarball + 
>.patch and .sh.
>
>So I leave it foo-VER.tar.[bz2|gz], leave it so that it unpacks into 
>foo-VER, just like the upstream folks made it in the first place.

Yeah, yeah.  I don't need another 183 line justification message,
thanks.  I've got it.

The wget packaging is just peachy.

cgf