On Oct 23 13:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 09:58:56AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Oct 22 22:49, Balaji wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > On Oct 17 10:17, Balaji wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> This being my first attempt at trying to possibly maintain a Cygwin
> >> >> package, I want make sure I'm doing the right thing. One odd thing is
> >> >> that all of the source code and Makefile are in the patch file. Also,
> >> >> am I free to convert the package to cygport/ditch the shell script
> >> >> etc. - I understand all that may typically be the maintainer's choice?
> >> >> Advance thanks for any advice from you seasoned veterans.
> >> >
> >> > Porting a package to cygport is highly appreciated, no worries.  And of
> >> > course you are free to pack it in a cleaner fashion than the existing
> >> > package.
> >> 
> >> One other question - I remember there was some discussion about noarch
> >> packages a while ago. Are there any rules for/against making something
> >> a noarch package. And the associated pros/cons - both from a
> >> maintainer and user perspective?
> >
> >Noarch packages are fine, but the packaging mechanism doesn't support
> >them the same way as in Linux distros.  They still have to show up
> >twice, once in the 32 and once in the 64 bit release area.
> 
> i.e., just like Linux distros do.

Well, kind of.  OpenSuSE provides subdirectories i586/i686, x86_64, and
noarch for packages which are target-independent, which is neat.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat