On 11/9/2011 5:00 AM, Jussi Kantola wrote:
AstroTortilla is fine with a custom repo. All we ever wanted was to
be able to install astrometry.net with Cygwin's setup.exe
OK.
How many
would we need for it to be considered significant enough?
No idea.
Is this document still valid?
http://sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/package-server.html
Seems accurate -- but it's missing information about gpg security. I
think you want "Creating a custom Cygwin package server" -- you probably
don't want to create or host a full mirror.
Anything else I need to know?
Here's what I do, locally:
<top>/setup.exe
<top>/genini
<top>/release/foo/foo-1.2.3-1.tar.bz2
<top>/release/foo/foo-1.2.3-1-src.tar.bz2
<top>/release/foo/setup.hint
$ cd cygwin
$ ./genini --recursive release > setup.ini
$ bzip2 -c < setup.ini > setup.bz2
Then, upload setup.ini, setup.bz2, the new tarballs and setup.hint to
your website, replicating the directory structure (from <top>/ on down).
Now, your users will have to invoke setup.exe with the -X, because
otherwise setup.exe will expect the setup.ini/bz2 files to be signed.
However, turning the security measures off is a problem, because then
your users have no protection against corrupted files on the *main*
mirrors, either.
So, ideally, you would ALSO sign *your* setup.ini/setup.bz2 files. See
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2008-08/msg00001.html
Now, this still requires your end users to take an explicit action (see
item (3i),(3ii),(3iii) in the referenced announcement.) You could
enable them to do (3i) or (3iii) via a batch file that you
distribute...or...
See the cygwin-ports instructions for their users, here:
http://sourceware.org/cygwinports/
In that case, the use of 'cygstart' implies that cygwinports would be
*added* to an existing cygwin installation; hence a bare-windows
installation would require two separate setup.exe runs (*). This is
actually a /good/ thing, because it means there's no confusion between
"the standard cygwin installation on my box" and "the cygwinports cygwin
installation on my box" -- your end users would just have one, to which
they've added the "extra" stuff.
(*) future "update" runs of setup would handle both the 'standard'
packages and the addons simultaneously.
Thanks once again for your time and effort! I'm sorry the lessons you
gave me will go down the drain if I won't become a package manager ...
;-)
You're still managing a package...it just wouldn't be hosted as an
intrinsic part of the cygwin distribution itself.
--
Chuck