ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/02/20:54:00

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
Subject: Re: /setup.html please read - feedback desired
From: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <20011102204613.B31918@redhat.com>
References: <1004700277 DOT 7488 DOT 2 DOT camel AT lifelesswks>
<3BE2E3D3 DOT 1050201 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011102134846 DOT H26975 AT redhat DOT com>
<1004745374 DOT 9086 DOT 77 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20011102195741 DOT A31898 AT redhat DOT com>
<1004750730 DOT 519 DOT 26 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20011102204613 DOT B31918 AT redhat DOT com>
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15 (Preview Release)
Date: 03 Nov 2001 12:57:23 +1100
Message-Id: <1004752644.521.47.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2001 02:01:41.0325 (UTC) FILETIME=[7AF307D0:01C1640B]

On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 12:46, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 12:25:29PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> >i.e. I'd like to be able to say "cygupload -current package foobar.bz2"
> >and have that do the right thing.
> 
> If cygupload puts the file on sources.redhat.com, then I'm in favor of
> that.  If it requires that you include '-current package', then I'm
> not sure that I am.

If package can always be inferred from the filename then package isn't 
needed. The -current could be the default behaviour.. see more below.

> >These are rough thoughts, but does the direction seem reasonable?
> 
> I think that putting data in setup.hint that can easily be inferred from
> file names does not make sense.  You can't infer the ldesc, sdesc,
> category, or requirements from the filename.  You can infer the version
> number.

You cannot infer the stability. Prev/curr/test actually covers two
different axes - prev/curr is (or looks like) a version axis, and
curr/test looks like a stability metric.
I'm suggesting that the upload tool needs to know how 'stable' a package
is. And that the three trust levels - prev, curr, test be updated
orthogonally to each other, with a simple command to indicate that a
test package is now stable, and likewise for stable->prev. (although as
stable-prev are on a different axis, having that pair auto migrate would
make sense to me)

> What I'm trying to say is that I don't see any reason to require
> setup.hint for the, IMO, normal cases.

Sure... but :}
 
> I think that the parser should handle this and I actually think that
> much or all of the setup.hint style information should be part of the
> package rather than external to it.  I think we probably agree on
> that.

Yes.
 
> However, if I produce a cygwin-1.3.59-1.tar.bz2 with no package info,
> I still think that 'upset' (the cygwin setup.ini updater) should
> be able to infer the info.

From cygwin-1.3.59-1.tar.bz2, I can infer
package - cygwin
version - 1.3.59
suffix  - 1
I cannot infer 
category
sdesc
ldesc
requires

And the whole point of the new setup is to stop user questions due to
missing requirements. category, sdesc and ldsesc are niceties, and not
mandatory.

So I think that a setup.hint containing a requires: line is _mandatory_
(at a minimum it should list cygwin if the program is linked to cygwin).

Rob

- Raw text -


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