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: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:09:43 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: strange source packaging?
Message-ID: <20020418110943.D24938@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020417210033 DOT GB20207 AT redhat DOT com> <49269 DOT 66 DOT 32 DOT 89 DOT 136 DOT 1019089317 DOT squirrel AT secure2 DOT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49269.66.32.89.136.1019089317.squirrel@secure2.ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:21:57PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
> >>  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.

If I'm looking over a package for inclusion I'm currently accepting
two styles:

  package-ver-subver/
    ...

or

  package-ver-subver.patch
  package-ver-subver.sh
  package-ver.tar.[bg]z[2*]   <-- The pristine source

Can we agree to use and document only these styles?

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.