On Dec 15 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 07:38:14AM +0100, Christian Franke wrote: > >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:16:40PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote: > >>> Many -src packages install files in /usr/src which have no > >>> PACKAGE[-VERSION] prefix or substring in file name. This makes it > >>> difficult to maintain or cleanup larger /usr/src directories. > >>> > >>> The attached experimental patch for setup.exe adds option -e, > >>> --separate-src-dirs. If specified, each PACKAGE-VERSION-src.tar.bz2 is > >>> installed below /usr/src/PACKAGE-VERSION instead. > >> If this is really desirable behavior then shouldn't we ask package > >> maintainers to fix their packages? I don't see why setup.exe should > >> have to know about this. > >> > > > >The patch is a pragmatic approach which works with all existing > >packages. It doesn't break anything existing. It would last long time > >until all src tarballs would be fixed. > > > >It is actually difficult to guess the origin of some source files. For > >example: > > > >/usr/src/0.19-data-auto-imports.patch (from flexdll-0.26-1) > >/usr/src/blacklist.txt (from ca-cerficates-*) > >/usr/src/config-rpath.patch (from some gcc-* ?) > > That's not difficult. It's trivial to figure out where these files > came from. > > I still don't understand the need for this. If everyone thinks it's > a good idea than why don't we eschew code bloat and make package > developers use this technique. Otherwise, unless you inspect the > source files, you'll be adding a separate layer of directory to > /usr/src for packages that don't need it.
I don't see a problem with that. I don't think it's the better approach to wait for all package maintainers to create new source packages. It's much easier to do it once and for all in setup. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat