From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19418 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2013 02:32:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 19401 invoked by uid 89); 15 Sep 2013 02:32:33 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Sep 2013 02:32:33 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_PGP_SIGNED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8F2WUa5001980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:32:30 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.44] (ovpn-113-44.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.44]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8F2WTWq026724 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:32:29 -0400 Message-ID: <52351C3D.8010609@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 06:12:00 -0000 From: Eric Blake User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: information needed from xdelta users OpenPGP: url=http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oAJpn9eDmCqfItKdJUF8CnFoPnnwJ21m2" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 --oAJpn9eDmCqfItKdJUF8CnFoPnnwJ21m2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1213 I'm in the middle of repackaging xdelta for cygwin 64, and stumbled into a rather big rathole. The original xdelta came with a development library for linking into C programs, but it hasn't had an upstream release since 1.1.4 in 2007. Meanwhile, a new xdelta3 package is under active development; it shares the same command line interface, but does not offer a C library interface. At least Fedora has decided to package 'xdelta' as JUST xdelta3 (with symlinks so that the old 'xdelta' command line still works), and with no development library. Would anyone be upset if I take the same approach for cygwin, and mark the xdelta-devel and libxdelta2 packages as obsolete as part of upgrading to the xdelta3 code base? It would make my life much easier (xdelta3 builds out of the box; xdelta 1 has suffered from severe bit-rot so that it needs quite a bit of patching before it will even build on 32-bit cygwin, and I'm giving up hope of getting it into 64-bit cygwin). I know recent traffic mentions that pristine-tar needs xdelta; is it just the command-line interface that is needed? https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-apps/2013-09/msg00121.html --=20 Eric Blake volunteer cygwin xdelta package maintainer --oAJpn9eDmCqfItKdJUF8CnFoPnnwJ21m2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-length: 621 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSNRw9AAoJEKeha0olJ0NqzRQH/2rTLwujnMAB1qhejVFE3TWD tkGTW8AoTSmxgVdg69q+P1eXo0o9GYcLU74wO6xXOjIy0MyGZ2MYC6V85Us2LSEk Ts6xkJWO06zy/jt4Y59zvjhhB6Bem0/Bbu1GcAb0qIOIMr+6OpXH5jpGNBacxYj1 GxK1pFPEVERzotVYkSdjZs/5GlRL6TdnD6bEXMpxuPma11pXqOKn6KX5r7sXm8A1 uMTfRjutgDshVyIcW2cEaX1Es+YA9cxCiCgHYSCGWrqukgW852i5mYRXpmohh4Pb y3mfqp3rWLJXsDc+dEaYYxAEtCF8TJlAG4BigVALJtMbrlQ3X1Yb5lLqOLeIOQY= =f9Tw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oAJpn9eDmCqfItKdJUF8CnFoPnnwJ21m2--