Pavel Tsekov wrote: > From: Brian Gallew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> no patches whatsoever. I didn't regenerate configure or *.in. The >> only difference between my source tarball and the original one is >> that this one is pre-configured (in case someone just wants to type >> "make"). If you'd prefer, I can certainly replace it with a >> pristine source tarball. I'm hesitant to drop the autom4te cache >> simply because then I really should provide a patch, and I have no >> desire to provide unnecessary patches. > > You did good then. If something is in the original source tarball you > should keep it. > > I'm not sure though that preconfiguring the package is a good idea - > what about if the guy who wants to use the source package doesn't have > OpenSSL installed and you had it ? > > What about including a directory named CYGWIN-PATCHES in the source > tarball ? It should include the setup.hint file and the README file. > This will require a patch I guess. > > If I am wrong, please, someone correct me.
You are not wrong, but there is more to say: AFAIK, a README is not _required_. Neither is it required (also AFAIK) for setup.hint to be *inside* the tarball (after all, if anyone wants it, they can always grab it from any Cygwin mirror). So, he *could* just put up the pure unchanged source tarball, if and only if it builds with "./configure && make" with no options or patches. Now, personally, I think method 2 (script-based) packaging is best, so I'd suggest having a look at the "Method Two" section of http://cygwin.com/setup.html. Max.
