----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion
> Robert Collins wrote: > > > > You merely changed the name of the internal tarball slightly. > > > > Correct, because it should have been the vendors tarball as is. > > Yeah, but didn't "we" decide that src packages should unpack into > <pkg>-<ver>-<rel>? I've been making my packages (for the past year or > more) unpack into <pkg>-<ver> regardless of what <rel> was, and > distinctly remember concluding that I was "wrong" according to consensus > on the list. ... > I don't have a problem with that, but it is contrary to the > previously-discussed decision. That consensus was because of alterations in the source/make script/cygwin readme etc between each package update, to prevent them tramping over each other. With those things contained in the patch, only the patch needs versioning. (IMO). > > I didn't realise I'd altered the README. Oops. I've been maintaining > > that what I'm talking about is orthogonal to the package building at > > this point. However I've updated the script & readme to use the > > structure I have in the tarball. I've also mailed you another style3 > > tarball... built via 'mktemp-1.3.1-1.sh all' > > Sure -- they are orthogonal subjects until you bring a human into the > process. Who has to unpack the -src dist, and then build it. As soon > as you try to give that human instructions on unpacking/building, you > create a link between the packaging and building -- thru the README file > and the .sh/rules/make/script. I see the point. My point was that what we have for building already - your CYGWIN.PATCHES/foo-ver-rel.sh script works well. > > The styleX-mktemp-1.3.1*.README and styleX-mktemp-1.3.1*.sh files are > extracted from the tarballs for easier viewing, but the "dists" consist > only of the .tar.bz2 and -src.tar.bz2 files. > > Really, Robert, I don't see much difference between style2 and style3: True. > > style3: unpacks HERE. (e.g. no embedded paths). > build script creates -src.tar.bz2 HERE (overwrites downloaded > version?) No, as the downloaded tarball is never saved - setup.exe extracts it immediately. i.e. in empty dir /usr/src (as setup.exe currently hardcodes). run setup.exe download source for foo-2 (foo is the vendor name+version combined) you get foo-2.patch and foo.tar.bz2. And if you do have an existing foo-2-src tarball, then yes the idea is to replace it, after all you are making a new one deliberately. (or you would not have passed "all" to the script.) > build script creates .tar.bz2 HERE yes. > READMEs and build scripts differ only to support these ^^^^ differences; > otherwise, they are the same. Yup. The directories and patch location are the only things I've been harping on about. IMO they are very important. Rob