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
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Message-ID: <49269.66.32.89.136.1019089317.squirrel@secure2.ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <20020417210033.GB20207@redhat.com>
References: <20020417210033 DOT GB20207 AT redhat DOT com>
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)


>>  http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html
>
> Wow.  Insightful email.

as usual...

> 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.

It's been a bit of a mess.  In my original email to this thread, I
summarized the three packaging styles (I won't call them standards) that are
currently, actually, in use.

That doesn't mean I think having 3 different styles -- only one of which is
actually documented somewhere official -- is a good idea.  OTOH, since the
longwinded discussion last November (and its resolution sans an actual
standard), Robert and I (and a few others) have been "standardizing" one way
(which was a compromise in and of itself).  So there are only 3 extant
styles, not 47.  Which is something.

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

Actually, if there's no opposition (hah!) I'll update the documentation to
reflect the current situation (e.g. 3 styles) -- but I'd like to mark one of
them as the preferred style for new packages.  Hopefully mine and robert's
style. ;-)

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

Chris, in private mail I would've just sent you the one link and I *know*
that would've been sufficient.  However, on a public list a little more
info, background, and justification is needed -- if only to forestall the
inevitable hue and cry.

> The wget packaging is just peachy.

<g>

--Chuck