Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/02/18:58:48
On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 04:23, Roth, Kevin P. wrote:
> 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?
Historically is has been. I'm in favour of requiring the -1, but I don't
want things to be 'too hard'.
> Under "Making Packages", I think the "standard" for binary
> packages is to leave off the initial "/" on filenames
Correct. Thank you.
> 3) file -> directory typo
> The oft-referenced texinfo-4.0 example on the cygwin ml
> includes the specific commands that can be used to
> "unapply" the foo-vendor-suffix.patch file; could you
> add those commands to this file?
Well, those commands depend on the exact patch syntax used. I've added a
set that *should* be ok.
> Again under "Making packages", you said that the patch
> file should extract to /usr/src/foo-vendor-suffix.patch.
> The texinfo example says it should go at
> Which place is "correct"?
Ah, I'm changing things here. I think that having it 1 level up from the
patched source tree is _much_ easier, otherwise your patch really
_cannot_ clean the tree properly - because it is in it.
Thoughts from everyone?
> Again, not to be nit-picky; however your example of
> "foo-vendor-suffix" is a bit misleading. Most packages
> use "package-version-suffix", and don't (necessarily)
> mention the "Vendor" in the package's name. I suggest
> using the more generic but hopefully more accurate
> "package-version-suffix" verbage throughout the doc.
Ok, I'll do this at a more relaxed time. foo-vendor-suffix came from the
earlier in the article definitions - pacakge "foo", vendor version
- Raw text -