Re: avoiding a huge Cygwin patch
Andrew schrieb: Actually, I think it might even be less trouble to create a separate docs package than to try cramming extra binary files into the unison one, but it's really up to you. Well creating a unison-doc package would be easy-- it only has two files, the HTML and PDF manuals. But please tell me that for the source package I wouldn't then have to get the TeX source and compile it into HTML and PDF using the Hevea compiler, which would then require a package of its own-- I'm entirely uninterested in going down that road. Having Hevea is an option now since we have O'Caml included now. Would be nice to have it, maybe there is someone interested to maintain it? For just a docs package, can I get away with having no corresponding src package at all? Hmmm, there is already another docs package where special tools not in the Cygwin distribution included are needed (dygwin-doc;), so it should be no showstopper, but at least providing a package including the document source would be fine. Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: avoiding a huge Cygwin patch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to add PDF and HTML user manuals (about 250 KB and 160 KB, respectively) into the unison package. The manuals are available for download at the upstream site, but they aren't included in the package source archive. This creates two problems: (1) It will cause the gbs to create an enormous patch file, containing all of the PDF and HTML manuals in it. (2) The PDF includes some binary data. I've never tried to use diff and patch with binary data, but I'm guessing that it's asking for trouble. So what's the best way to handle this? Is it acceptable to copy the manuals in after creating the source patch, thereby excluding them from the patch? Yes. You can add as many flags to the mkpatch() function as needed, e.g. -x 'additional-docs' when you put the documents intopp a directory called 'additional-docs'. Just make a note in the README where the documents are available, add the license for the docs (if different as the source licenses). Maybe the best way to handle this would be a separate package with the manuals and, if available, with the documents source in a src package. Gerrit -- =^..^=
Re: avoiding a huge Cygwin patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what's the best way to handle this? Is it acceptable to copy the manuals in after creating the source patch, thereby excluding them from the patch? In HTML Tidy package (src, doc and test are 3 different archives) I solved modifying the script to decompress all of the 3, during prep. This way, the patch also applies only to differences in content; take a look at the script in case: it's a very easy mod. Lapo - -- Lapo Luchini [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP X.509 keys available) http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkFu5DgACgkQaJiCLMjyUvt/LwCfQSxoJTBeQVtpiqhjZbkF9CIj GuMAmwZ3tAU8lnnku+CtVzXSkkdzW0eb =N1Px -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: avoiding a huge Cygwin patch
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Andrew Schulman wrote: Is it acceptable to copy the manuals in after creating the source patch, thereby excluding them from the patch? Yes. You can add as many flags to the mkpatch() function as needed, e.g. -x 'additional-docs' when you put the documents intopp a directory called 'additional-docs'. Just make a note in the README where the documents are available, add the license for the docs (if different as the source licenses). OK, that would work. Is 'additional-docs' a standard place for this, or would something else like 'CYGWIN-EXTRAS' (easy to find next to CYGWIN-PATCHES) also be okay? Maybe the best way to handle this would be a separate package with the manuals and, if available, with the documents source in a src package. I'll look into this. Maybe more trouble than it's worth, or maybe not. Actually, I think it might even be less trouble to create a separate docs package than to try cramming extra binary files into the unison one, but it's really up to you. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing. -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw
Re: avoiding a huge Cygwin patch
Actually, I think it might even be less trouble to create a separate docs package than to try cramming extra binary files into the unison one, but it's really up to you. Well creating a unison-doc package would be easy-- it only has two files, the HTML and PDF manuals. But please tell me that for the source package I wouldn't then have to get the TeX source and compile it into HTML and PDF using the Hevea compiler, which would then require a package of its own-- I'm entirely uninterested in going down that road. For just a docs package, can I get away with having no corresponding src package at all? Thanks, Andrew.
