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=/a/center
!-- == --
-!--
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...
-standard Cygwin setup program. This documents the syntax of the
+standard
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 smart
, 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 conversion, I'm happy for this to go in.
However as it's
a change
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:
-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's no opposition (hah!) I'll update the
documentation
-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 user
-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 source from
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 do -
-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 GPL requires us to document the changes made - if
we
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 make that
-Original Message-
From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:20 AM
Section 2.a
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you chaned the files and the date of any change.
/Section 2.a
A differences file
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 suggested that we
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-patch' at all.
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 maintainer
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
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
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
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 the
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
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
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?
???
Chris, are you
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 community a mistake.
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 as it
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 the
25 matches
Mail list logo
