On Dec 15 14:13, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/15/2011 01:59 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I think it's lame to have something like, e.g., > > > > /usr/src/openssh-5.6p1-2/openssh-5.6p1-2 > > /usr/src/binutils-2.22.51-1/binutils-2.22.51-1 > > > > sitting in my /usr/src. I find that nearly as objectionable as having > > files littered in /usr/src.
I don't like /usr/src/binutils-2.22.51-1/binutils-2.22.51-1 either, but it's much less objectionable than having /usr/src littered with the content of package files. Especially given the fact that most(?) packages today are packed using cygport which uses a flat file structure. And, I never liked the rpm way to put everything into /usr/src/SOURCES or ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES either. In the end, a useless duplication of the source dir is easier to live with, IMO. > Personally, I think hacking setup.exe is less time-consuming to provide > the hack, but more compute-intensive, as the work is replicated on every > machine where setup.exe is installed, as well as delayed implementation, > as not everyone updates setup.exe right away; while repacking existing > tarballs has a bigger up-front cost for the person doing the repacking, > but provides a more efficient and instant downstream effect. That, and > repacking seems fairly easy to automate. I'm now 75-25 in favor of > cgf's proposed approach of repacking things and leaving setup.exe alone. I think that computing time is negligible. The idea to have the logic in a single place, setup, is much more convincing to me than to enforce a specific way to pack source packages. Also, compare a 15 lines patch against the hassle to change 1800 soyurce packages *and* to enforce a new package method on all maintainers. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
