Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:06:54 -0500
Message-Id: <200001270406.XAA03192@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: andrewd AT axonet DOT com DOT au
CC: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-reply-to: <00F8D6E8AB0DD3118F1A006008186C9607C851@server1.axonet.com.au>
	(message from Andrew Dalgleish on Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:45:46 +1100)
Subject: Re: next net release preliminary info
References:  <00F8D6E8AB0DD3118F1A006008186C9607C851 AT server1 DOT axonet DOT com DOT au>


> I like the way debian number their packages with the "upstream" version
> as the most significant, and the "debian" version as the least
> significant.

You mean like gcc-2.95.2-1 ?  Red Hat does that too, and I can see
good reason to adopt it for cygwin ports as well.  The key issue with
something like cygwin is also identifying which version of the *other*
packages were used to build it, like the cygwin version or binutils
version.  Just bumping the last number is sufficient, but not ideal.

> For packages like the GNU fileutils etc, will the source tarballs
> include the original source + patches (similar to debian) or pre-patched
> source files?

I think it's up to the person doing the port, but if it were I, I
would provide the original .tar.gz, a diff.gz, and a binary tar.gz.  I
prefer having the diffs separate so I (1) can submit it to the
maintainers easily, and (2) remember what to check for when the next
version comes out.

> * More work for the package maintainer. (Hmm, not good... :-)

Not really.  You just have to untar the original sources and run diff.
Plus, having a diff handy helps with other steps.