From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101843 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2015 23:31:37 -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 101834 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2015 23:31:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:31:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B46AB91C17 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:31:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.3.113.15] ([10.3.113.15]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8ANVYwm019827 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:31:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages. To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <55F1EAA8.5020806@cox.net> <55F2102B.70900@cox.net> From: Eric Blake Openpgp: url=http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55F212CF.3030604@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55F2102B.70900@cox.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uw4b4a7eLQ7sjGiWAusEP2biiTKguRIP1" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 --uw4b4a7eLQ7sjGiWAusEP2biiTKguRIP1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 2681 On 09/10/2015 05:20 PM, David A Cobb wrote: >>> I am looking at possible work within *COREUTILS*. Obviously, there are >>> significant deltas /versus/ GNU Upstream. >>> Can you point me to the active repo for coreutils? >> >> http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/coreutils.html >=20 > Yeah, Marco. Thanks. > Actually, the repo is . >=20 > Are you saying that is your direct upstream and your sources only differ > by the patchfiles installed by Cygwin-Setup?? Yes, the cygwin build of coreutils is made by taking the upstream tarball release (which is created from the upstream coreutils.git at labeled points in time) and then adding additional patches which are distributed (as required by the GPL) in the source package that you can download using setup.exe. >> > I should have phrased the question differently, I guess. My question > is related to dependencies of the 'coreutils.' Cloning GNU Coreutils > comes in with sub-module 'gnulib'. >=20 > Suppose I wanted to propose a patch to Coreutils, but being stuck on a > Windows platform I use Coreutils only through Cygwin64 and MSYS2. Not a problem. My first patch to upstream coreutils was done exactly in that manner. > And, suppose for the moment, some of the changes are only relevant to > the Windows platform. I don't (yet) know how much GNU (i.e. RMS) really > gives a flying bird about making Windows play nice. So, to whom do I > propose the changes? I really, really don't want to create a private > fork. If I didn't think my ideas are worthy of pushing up the food > chain, I should just go back to bed. Depends on how invasive your changes are. If it is truly windows-specific and hard to maintain, then upstream probably won't pay attention (which is why I maintain some cygwin-specific patches, such as .exe magic manipulations, downstream-only). But if it fixes a bad upstream assumption (such as "function foo would never do that", except that on cygwin function foo DOES do that, and it is feasible that some other system would do likewise), then upstream is the right place. (For example, my very first patch to upstream coreutils is dated 2005-01-11, where I fixed Makefile.am to deal with $(EXEEXT) - and more than just cygwin creates binaries with .exe suffix so it is relevant upstream). If you're unsure whether a proposed patch is worth posting upstream or downstream, pick one place, and I'm more than willing to help you redirect it to the other place if it wasn't appropriate. (Picking upstream first is generally a nicer policy). --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --uw4b4a7eLQ7sjGiWAusEP2biiTKguRIP1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-length: 604 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJV8hLPAAoJEKeha0olJ0NqUIQH/RiXHxXAiCR5Ip99FZ1xw/VW 7SHmJTGCsvJp42S6v2IKWyHRmAo7HUc7XS6Wo88rPSIY7fG+2Vh7QaaYCzeJo5oZ 6IecC/m76vHEtF8zdseAyi7ToAPw24FSOoteNZvM20lyBgV87uhgaOh+DFQB12Fx 17gaEaoMsUGrUNUMuCthIkd5o6eVhixrign5zr7xBxwcmxK09x2jqsXslOJe8c4W pg3ONuK2I70ieWqO3KolHHtWn2l4TyMfvUeA9JIu1ribVQ9PXToDGxsynePiMsWR dYRISnlHDVOQqeg/R4y3/th16LY7qKHaYvJpMYbPXy0Z+6vFMMRrtUx++YyiD/A= =fYa0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uw4b4a7eLQ7sjGiWAusEP2biiTKguRIP1--