> -----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 receives should be patched. However that is somewhat orthogonal to how the download is accomplished. > I > differences from pristine supplied would be nice but if I > really care I would go and find the originals. That's not actually the point. The point is that with some minor setup.exe tweaking, the source download can be done it two parts: 'pristine' + (patch[es] & scripts). Then when a local adjustment is made, but the upstream hasn't released a new version, users can get the new source trivially - setup should be smart enough to see the pristine tarball in the /usr/src (or wherever) directory and just download the appropriate patch set. Rob
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- Re: strange source packaging? Corinna Vinschen
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- Re: strange source packaging? Corinna Vinschen
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- Re: strange source packaging? Corinna Vinschen
- Re: strange source packaging? Christopher Faylor
- Re: strange source packaging? Earnie Boyd
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- RE: strange source packaging? Robert Collins
- RE: strange source packaging? Robert Collins
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- Re: strange source packaging? Earnie Boyd
- RE: strange source packaging? Robert Collins
- RE: strange source packaging? Robert Collins
- RE: strange source packaging? Robert Collins
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- Re: strange source packaging? Robert Collins
- Re: strange source packaging? Charles Wilson
- RE: strange source packaging? Robert Collins