On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 06:57:23AM -0700, Dario Alcocer wrote: >Are there any guidelines or suggestions regarding packaging >source, patches and binaries for programs (like Ghostscript) >that can be built for either Cygwin or Cygwin/XFree86? > >Unless I hear a very compelling reason to do otherwise, I'm >planning on releasing three binary packages and a single >source package: > > * A ghostscript-base package, which includes all the > common files required by both program versions. > > * A ghostscript package, which contains only the non-X11 > version of gs.exe, and a README describing the build > process. > > * A ghostscript-x11 package, which contains only the X11 > version of gs.exe, possibly renamed to xgs or gsx, and > a README describing how to build it for XFree86. > > * A source package which contains all the patches for both > builds and both README files. > >I'm picking this packaging method so that both X11 and non-X11 >versions can both be installed, without getting into problems >when un-installing one and not the other. > >I've looked around in the cygwin-apps archives, and I've not >found this discussed with respect to other apps (e.g. rxvt) >that can be built for either Cygwin or Cygwin/XFree86.
That sounds perfect to me. The only open issue is where to install the X11 versions of stuff. I'd been strongly suggesting that all X applications go into /usr/X11R6/bin but I suspect that this rule may not have been followed. Others have pointed out that distributions like Red Hat just put the X apps directly into /usr/bin, leaving /usr/X11R6/bin for the actual XFree86 distribution. Regardless of this, I think it still makes sense to put X apps in the X-specific bin directory. Of course, then there is my other rule that X apps live in the release/XFree86 hierarchy. I guess I should amend this rule to mean "strictly X apps". It wouldn't make sense to scatter your distribution into different directories when they would nicely fall into one ghostscript directory and subdirectories. cgf
