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 makes sense to the maintainer himself": > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html
Wow. Insightful email. >Since last November, ALL of my packages, and most of Robert's and a few >others, have been like this: > foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 contains > foo-VER.tar.[gz|bz2] -- whatever the upstream folks distribute > foo-VER-REL.patch > foo-VER-REL.sh > and that's it. I'm even a mildly annoyed when Corinna insists that >(oldstyle) -src packages MUST unpack into foo-VER-REL/ instead of >foo-VER/ since MY packages -- as agreed last November -- contain the >pristine upstream sources. And the upstream maintainers know *nothing* >about our release numbers. 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 final word on the subject. I'll just leave the documentation as is so we can have this truly delightful conversation again in a couple of months. >If "gzip -dc foo.tar.gz | bzip2 > foo.tar.bz2" is a marginal "is it >'pristine' or not" case, then > > tar xvzf foo-VER.tar.gz > mv foo-VER foo-VER-REL > tar cvjf foo-VER???.tar.bz2(*) foo-VER-REL/ > tar cvjf foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2 foo-VER???.tar.bz2 foo-VER-REL.patch >foo-VER-REL.sh > >(*)foo-VER???.tar.bz2 is definitely NOT the pristine source. Its >internal dirname has changed, as well as the tarball name, and >compression type. And what the hell do I call it? > >I can't name it 'foo-VER-REL.tar.bz2' because that's the name of the >binary package. > >I can't call it 'foo-VER.tar.bz2' because then I'll have multiple versions: > the 'original' upstream one -- unpacks into foo-VER/ > two or three somewhat modified ones, depending on how many releases I >create: -1's foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-1/, -2's >foo-VER.tar.bz2 unpacks into foo-VER-2, etc. But, each contains exactly >the same code. > >I can't call it 'foo-VER-REL-src.tar.bz2' because that's the name of my >larger -src tarball, which contains the "pristine"(hah!) tarball + >.patch and .sh. > >So I leave it foo-VER.tar.[bz2|gz], leave it so that it unpacks into >foo-VER, just like the upstream folks made it in the first place. Yeah, yeah. I don't need another 183 line justification message, thanks. I've got it. The wget packaging is just peachy. cgf