>>Chris, are you disagreeing with this post >><http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-04/msg00298.html>, or repudiating >> > > I'm referring to this passage in http://cygwin.com/setup.html: > > * Source packages are extracted in /usr/src. On extraction, the tar > file should put the sources in a directory with the same name as the > package tar ball minus the -src.tar.bz2 part: > > boffo-1.0-1/Makefile.in > boffo-1.0-1/README > boffo-1.0-1/configure > boffo-1.0-1/configure.in > etc... > > That is not the case for wget.
And it is not the case for the other 20+ packages I listed. Because the passage on setup.html to which you refer was written prior to the discussion last November about -src packaging. 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 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. 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. --Chuck
