ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/09/12/09:32:20

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3B9F63DA.3020803@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:32:10 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010713
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CA List <Cygwin-Apps AT Cygwin DOT Com>
Subject: Re: Mingw and w32api package names.
References: <3B9E33C6 DOT B8B10989 AT yahoo DOT com> <20010911115844 DOT B12971 AT redhat DOT com> <3B9E4F56 DOT FF6B92A1 AT yahoo DOT com> <3B9F6038 DOT 36CB9E47 AT yahoo DOT com>

Earnie Boyd wrote:

> Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 11:54:46AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>>>Shortly I'll be releasing new packages for MinGW and w32api.  The
>>>>current file name for MinGW isn't really reflective of the package name
>>>>itself.  I would like to use mingw-runtime-$(VERSION)-$(CYGRELEASE) for
>>>>the name.  I would also like to use w32api-$(VERSION)-$(CYGRELEASE) for
>>>>the w32api package name.  This is more consistent with the packaging and
>>>>is more consistent with the way the packages are distributed by the
>>>>MinGW team.  Comments or objections?
>>>I'm sure that this it will confuse the current version of setup if you
>>>call this mingw-runtime.  How are you planning on dealing with the
>>Adding an entry `@ mingw-runtime' seems to work ok.  It would give
>>enough time to work out the details of what to do for the `@ mingw'
>>entry for the next release, e.g.: a post install script to remove
>>entries from the setup control files in /etc/setup.
> Can I assume this to be acceptable?

If mingw-runtime is a strict superset of mingw, then yeah.  Otherwise, 
you'd need to also release an empty mingw package and have people 
"upgrade" to that FIRST (this will remove all files in mingw, including 
those files that mingw-runtime does not have),  Then, have people 
install mingw-runtime (with its postinstall script to munge 


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019