-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [replying to cygwin-apps as well, for archival purposes]
According to James R. Phillips on 9/7/2005 6:53 AM: > octave-otags wouldn't even have to compile, since it only contains shell > script > and man page. Does it make sense to package something like this separately > from octave? I think it is reasonable as a separate package, if you'd like to maintain it that way (you have a bit of leeway here, as the maintainer, to divide the package how you like). > If so, 1) what is the packaging protocol for something that > doesn't require compilation; Check out bash-completion, which is a package without even a configure or Makefile, for ideas of what has to be done in g-b-s if you are making a source tarball for a non-compiled package. On the other hand, since it is a derivative package, you can provide a binary only tarball with a setup hint that defers to the main octave source tarball by using the external-source: line in your setup.hint, rather than trying to create two source tarballs for the two packages. 2) How would one express an "or" condition in the > setup.hint, as in requires emacs or emacs-x11? emacs-X11 depends on emacs, but making octave-otags depend on emacs-X11 would slurp in a lot of X, just for the use of etags. So you are probably okay with just listing emacs as your dependency. - -- Life is short - so eat dessert first! Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDHuX584KuGfSFAYARAqohAKCWjkR02qiSolPqMOGQbO/ukt8NYQCg1O4g HASxDgRquzgu/eAtYvbsxdE= =8F7v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----