Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/02/13:49:01
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 12:23:12PM -0500, Roth, Kevin P. wrote:
>1) Under "Package File Naming", I see "The first release of a package
>for a given vendor version may optionally skip the suffix". I take
>that to mean that
>are both acceptable? Is that true?
No. There are some packages in the tree currently that do that but it
is not correct. I've changed the wording.
>2) Under "Making Packages", I think the "standard" for binary packages
>is to leave off the initial "/" on filenames inside the tarball. E.g.:
>I think the point is to allow someone to expand the binary package into
>some other location (besides "/") if desired for whatever reason.
I think this is implied by:
* Binary packages are extracted in /, include all file paths from the
root in your archive.
Actually, this should be:
>3) I realize this one is kind of nit-picky, but the 4th bullet under
>"Making Packages" mentions a "file" named /usr/doc/foo-vendor, when in
>fact this should call it a "directory".
Actually, this is correct. This should be a file.
- Raw text -