On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:33:50PM -0700, Joe Linoff wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:06:21PM -0700, Joe Linoff wrote: >> >> >>>I am afraid that I am not sure what you mean by beta-test but I don't >>>think that the program needs to be tested at all. >>> >>> >> >>Any reason for sending this multiple times? >> >>What everyone seems to be missing is this: >> >>http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-cat.cgi?file=ccdoc%2Fccdoc-0.8.39-1&grep=ccdoc >> >>ccdoc is already part of the distribution. >> >>That's what I mean by "beta test". I don't understand why you'd send a >>"ready for experimentation" message here. Do you see any other messages >>like that in this mailing list? >> >No, but the setup.html specifically refers to "experimentation" in step >9 of the "submitting a package" guidelines.
That was a poor choice of words (it was probably mine) but it wasn't referring to cygwin-apps, anyway. >>I'm thoroughly confused. You are the package maintainer but you, and >>everyone else are treating this like a new experience. >> >It is a new experience, sort of. This time I tried to the follow the >http:://cygwin.com/setup.html instructions as closely as possible. In >doing so, I ran across a number of things that appeared different than >last time: > >1. Version number appeared to be <major>.<minor>. The page says: "Package naming scheme: use the vendor's version plus a release suffix for ports of existing packages..." No one is forcing you to do make it <major>.<minor>. There are a number of examples of packages which are more than just <major>.<minor> but a really obvious one is the cygwin DLL itself. >2. The patch file was supposed to be hard coded to >/usr/src/foo-vendor-release.patch. There are two patch methods and I don't believe that they have changed substantially in years. >3. Binary release files went to /usr/share/man and /usr/share/doc. > >I think that is where I got into trouble. It sounds like where you really got into trouble was not following the discussion about packages that has gone on since you last submitted ccdoc. As a package maintainer, you should be subscribed to cygwin-apps and you should be at least monitoring discussions about changes to package conventions (like moving from /usr/man to /usr/share/man). None of this should be a surprise. cgf
