RE: strange source packaging?

TECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:18 PM > To: Robert Collins > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: strange source packaging? > > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > All the content changes look great however. If you can clean up the > > space to tab convers

Re: strange source packaging?

Robert Collins wrote: > All the content changes look great however. If you can clean up the > space to tab conversion, I'm happy for this to go in. However as it's a > change to the standard... > > Any objections from any contributor? Okay, I've made the corrections you mentioned. I had "smar

Re: strange source packaging?

: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 5:04 PM Subject: Re: strange source packaging? > > Can we get a diff for the HTML page? > > Okay Thanks... >

Re: strange source packaging?

> Can we get a diff for the HTML page? Okay --- setup-old.html Sun Apr 21 03:03:18 2002 +++ setup.html Sun Apr 21 03:01:44 2002 @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ border=0 usemap="#topbar" alt=""> - - - + + + @@ -71,11 +71,11 @@ This document is intended for people who post packages to

RE: strange source packaging?

> -Original Message- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 3:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: strange source packaging? > > > Charles Wilson wrote: > > > > Actually, if there&#x

Re: strange source packaging?

Charles Wilson wrote: > Actually, if there's no opposition (hah!) I'll update the documentation to > reflect the current situation (e.g. 3 styles) -- but I'd like to mark one of > them as the preferred style for new packages. Hopefully mine and robert's > style. ;-) Okay, as promised: documen

RE: strange source packaging?

> -Original Message- > From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:20 AM > > You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you chaned the files and the date of any change. > > > A differences file alone doesn't acc

Re: strange source packaging?

Charles Wilson wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > And the GPL requires us to document the changes made - if we have the > > patch pre-applied, with no reverse patch, then this isn't the case. > > Asking folk to go elsewhere to get that 'pristine' source puts the onus > > on the upstream to m

RE: strange source packaging?

> -Original Message- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 10:57 PM > To: Robert Collins > Cc: Corinna Vinschen > Subject: Re: strange source packaging? > > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > > And the

Re: strange source packaging?

Robert Collins wrote: > And the GPL requires us to document the changes made - if we have the > patch pre-applied, with no reverse patch, then this isn't the case. > Asking folk to go elsewhere to get that 'pristine' source puts the onus > on the upstream to make that available, which we can't d

RE: strange source packaging?

> -Original Message- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:44 AM > of the antecedent project. There is no way, given just > gcc-2.95.3-5-src.tar.bz2, to "revert to the 'original' > source" -- short > of also downloading the 2.95.3 sou

RE: strange source packaging?

> -Original Message- > From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 3:13 AM > I'll add another penny to make it 2c. I agree with Chris > that I'd rather already have the patch applied. Why? If it's for ease of use, then fine - I agree that what the u

Re: strange source packaging?

Christopher Faylor wrote: > > From my point of view, when I download the source rpm for a package, I > always find it rather annoying that I have to apply patches by hand. Well, for rpm's, you can always do: rpm -bp which will unpack the tarball and apply the various patches. Kinda lik

Re: strange source packaging?

Christopher Faylor wrote: > > From my point of view, when I download the source rpm for a package, I > always find it rather annoying that I have to apply patches by hand. I'd > rather just have the latest, greatest version of things extracted into > a directory where I can type "configure/make

Re: strange source packaging?

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:44:26AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >The argument for style 1 against style 2 is this: Does anybody, other >than Chris, have ANY idea what the differences between gnu-gcc-2.95.3 >and cygwin-gcc-2.95.3-5 are? How many files are changed, and how >significantly? What

Re: strange source packaging?

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:44:26AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > BUT...having said all of that, I reiterate: I prefer the style 3 over > EITHER style 1 or style 2 -- and the question here seems to be "document > styles 1,2,3, or document 1,(!2),3 or (!1),2,3 So I win, regardless. I > really

Re: strange source packaging?

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I'm talking about style 2. I'm using it for my packages. I don't > see a need that the Cygwin package needs the patch from the original > version. The pristine source is available elsewhere. We're > responsible for the Cygwin version. In the long run the maintaine

Re: strange source packaging?

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 10:44:10AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > Both "style 1" and "style 2" in my original email obey this. The > difference is that "style 2" packages -- gcc, binutils, make, etc -- > don't have > package-ver-subver/CYGWIN-PATCHES/a-patch > in fact, they don't have 'a-patc

Re: strange source packaging?

Corinna Vinschen wrote: > If I'm looking over a package for inclusion I'm currently accepting > two styles: > > package-ver-subver/ > ... Both "style 1" and "style 2" in my original email obey this. The difference is that "style 2" packages -- gcc, binutils, make, etc -- don't have

Re: strange source packaging?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 08:21:57PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > > >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html > > > > Wow. Insightful email. > > as usual... > > > Well, I guess I haven't been paying much attention to your and Robert's > > packages. I'd forgotten that I'd sugg

Re: strange source packaging?

>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html > > Wow. Insightful email. as usual... > Well, I guess I haven't been paying much attention to your and Robert's > packages. I'd forgotten that I'd suggested that we package as we see > fit and foolishly looked to what I supposed was

Re: strange source packaging?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:31:04PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >As I recall, the your final word on the matter -- before the thread >degenerated into yet another "We need an 'install all' option in setup" >discussion -- was (more or less) "whatever. All these proposals sound >fine. As long a

Re: strange source packaging?

>>Chris, are you disagreeing with this post >>, or repudiating >> > > I'm referring to this passage in http://cygwin.com/setup.html: > > * Source packages are extracted in /usr/src. On extraction, the tar > file should put the source

Re: strange source packaging?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 03:12:00PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: > > >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Lapo Luchini wrote: >> >>>Why the wget-1.8.1-1-src.tar.bz2 package does contain wget-1.8.1.tar.gz >>>? >>> >> >>That would be what is called in the software

Re: strange source packaging?

Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Lapo Luchini wrote: > >>Why the wget-1.8.1-1-src.tar.bz2 package does contain wget-1.8.1.tar.gz >>? >> > > That would be what is called in the software community "a mistake". > > Can this be corrected, asap, Hack? ??? C

Re: strange source packaging?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Lapo Luchini wrote: >Why the wget-1.8.1-1-src.tar.bz2 package does contain wget-1.8.1.tar.gz >? That would be what is called in the software community "a mistake". Can this be corrected, asap, Hack? cgf

Re: strange source packaging?

Lapo Luchini wrote: > PS: I can see at least a motivation for using "exact original package" now: so > that people can use md5sum and get convinced that the included file is really > exactly the original... Bingo. --Chuck

Re: strange source packaging?

> As to why the .gz(or.bz2) compressed "original source code" tarball is > included inside an .bz2 -src package, when the internal tarball can't > really be compressed further: it's the original. If I ungzip it, and > then bzip it, then it isn't the original version EXACTLY as distributed > by t

Re: strange source packaging?

Currently, there are three dominant -src packaging standards. 1. As detailed on http://cygwin.com/setup.html#package_contents foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 unpacks thus: foo-VER[-REL]/ foo-VER[-REL]/source files foo-VER[-REL]/subdirs foo-VER[-REL]/subdirs/source files foo-VER[-REL]/CYGWI

strange source packaging?

Why the wget-1.8.1-1-src.tar.bz2 package does contain wget-1.8.1.tar.gz ? This is pretty peculiar and mroeover defeats any additional compression .bz2 could have versus .gz (compressed data is uncompressable even if it could be comperssed better with another compressor ^_^)? Just for curiosity =)