Has anybody had a chance to take a look at this stuff yet? Comments? Possibly reactions; 1) I like style 1 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard 1a) [1], but with modifications 2) I like style 2 -- let's make this the new src packaging standard 2a) [2], but with modifications 3) what the **** are you doing? What's wrong with what we've got? 4) Yeah, we need to change something, but both of these examples suck 5) [obligatory] why don't we use rpm? dpkg? 6) other
--Chuck Charles Wilson wrote: > Okay, I put my money where my mouth is. See > > http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/packaging/ > > I've implemented two slightly different src packaging schemes: the one > I've been advocating, and a slightly modified version of the scheme > Robert likes. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > STYLE 1 (Chuck): > -src archive contains an inner "pristine" tarball in cygwin/SOURCES/ > along with a patch in the same directory. Since setup will > automagically unpack -src archives into /usr/src, that means we have > "/usr/src/cygwin/SOURCES/". Also, the -src archive contains a build > script in cygwin/SPECS/. > > So, -src contains 3 files, total. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > STYLE 2 (Robert): > > Since Corinna suggested that any scheme uses the RPM-ish directories, > I've adapted Robert's debian-like scheme to fit that structure > (basically, just put the src tarball and the patch in cygwin/SOURCES, > but the README instructs to unpack, patch, and build under cygwin/BUILD > rather than *right there* like debian does). > > When you unpack the inner (pristine) archive and apply the patch, you > get a "rules" file (shell script, not makefile, in this example) in > CYGWIN-PATCHES. I'm pretending that <srctop>/CYGWIN-PATCHES/ is like > debian's <srctop>/debian/. > > -src contains 2 files, total. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > These differences don't sound like much, but when you get down to it, > it's actually pretty profound. Since we don't (yet) have an outside > tool to handle unpacking the inner archive and applying the patch, > Robert's scheme is unwieldy IMO. This leads to lots of little > differences in how you rebuild the -src archive, naming (and dir > structure) of the "pristine" inner archive, etc. > > Until we actually HAVE a dpkg tool (or unless we change setup.exe to do > more than just unpack into /usr/src) I like style 1 better. > > Anyway, go to the URL, download, check it out. I'm going to bed. > > --Chuck >
