From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12882 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2014 23:47:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 12867 invoked by uid 89); 27 Mar 2014 23:47:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_COUK,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: out.ipsmtp1nec.opaltelecom.net Received: from out.ipsmtp1nec.opaltelecom.net (HELO out.ipsmtp1nec.opaltelecom.net) (62.24.202.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:47:00 +0000 X-SMTPAUTH: drstacey@tiscali.co.uk X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAMy3NFNPRt0G/2dsb2JhbAANTMNsgwcJgTCDGQEBAQQ4QBELGAkMCg8JAwIBAgFFEwgBAbYChUaeGBePAQoMhCIErjA X-IPAS-Result: ApMBAMy3NFNPRt0G/2dsb2JhbAANTMNsgwcJgTCDGQEBAQQ4QBELGAkMCg8JAwIBAgFFEwgBAbYChUaeGBePAQoMhCIErjA Received: from 79-70-221-6.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.5]) ([79.70.221.6]) by out.ipsmtp1nec.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2014 23:46:53 +0000 Message-ID: <5334B85D.9020808@tiscali.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:47:00 -0000 From: David Stacey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [RFC] cygport: arch-specific workdir References: <5329C6AE.7080803@cornell.edu> <5329DC45.7070806@users.sourceforge.net> <533472F3.6000504@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <533472F3.6000504@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On 27/03/14 18:50, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >> Actually, that is experimental code (based on a request from another >> cygport user) that was accidentally shipped when I had to reroll the >> source tarball for compatibility with F20/UnversionedDocDirs. Would >> people like to see this done always, never, or only when cross-building? > > There hasn't been much comment on this. Since it would be a visible > change for package maintainers, I would appreciate more of a > consensus. Are there any objections to making the workdir always > arch-specific (IOW name-ver-rel.arch)? I wrapped Cygport some time ago to give me a little extra functionality - for instance, for each package I maintain, it polls the project web page daily and does some regexp to see if a new version of the package had been released. If so, a new .cygport file is made and Cygport invoked to build, test and package the application. So any change to Cygport would give me a little maintenance, but I could probably cope with a directory rename! Besides, some maintenance on my builder is a bit overdue: the tool is still uploading binaries to my Dropbox account and preparing [RFU] e-mails :-) Dave.