On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 17:11 -0400, Ken Brown wrote: > On 9/9/2012 3:36 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 11:55 -0400, Ken Brown wrote: > >> I like the most recent cygport change in Git that allows one to omit > >> PN-PV-PR from .cygport file names. Have you thought about doing > >> something similar for the .src.patch and .cygwin.patch files? The > >> advantage would be the avoidance of file renames, as with the .cygport > >> change. > > > > Not really, because I don't recommend maintaining patches in the form > > of .src.patch and .cygwin.patch. After making code patches, I copy > > the .src.patch into one or more patches with appropriate names, which I > > then add to PATCH_URI and keep in version control. As > > for .cygwin.patch, with automatic setup.hint generation and no need for > > Cygwin READMEs, there isn't much of a need for CYGWIN-PATCHES anymore. > > A lot of package maintainers are still using Cygwin READMEs. I use one > for emacs, for instance, partially out of inertia, but also so that I > can give Cygwin-specific usage notes. But I guess there's no reason to > use CYGWIN-PATCHES for this; I could add it to SRC_URI instead.
Right, you could name it README.Cygwin, add it to SRC_URI and to DOCS. It would land in /usr/share/doc/$PN instead of /usr/share/doc/Cygwin, but that > Of the many packages that you maintain, there must be some for which > there's a good reason to have a Cygwin README. How do you handle that? The fact that I maintain so many packages is exactly why I avoid Cygwin READMEs; they take too much time to maintain in the thousands, and the (usually pointless) information provided in the standard template form is all available elsewhere. That being said, when I do have CYGWIN-PATCHES files (e.g. .hint files pre-0.11.0, .list files, custom postinstall/preremove scripts), I keep the individual files in version control alongside the .cygport and copy them into CYGWIN-PATCHES. Yaakov
