Repositories for Cygwin packages.

Repositories for Cygwin packages.

[David A Cobb]

I see the Git Repo for "the core Cygwin libraries and utilities (Cygwin 
and Newlib)" @ sourceware.com.

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?

Just to save net traffic, I'll dare post a second related question in 
the same message:
Is *NEWLIB* intended to be a "drop-in" replacement for *GNULIB*?




--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.

[Marco Atzeri]

On 10/09/2015 22:40, David A Cobb wrote:
> I see the Git Repo for "the core Cygwin libraries and utilities (Cygwin
> and Newlib)" @ sourceware.com.
>
> 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

>
> Just to save net traffic, I'll dare post a second related question in
> the same message:
> Is *NEWLIB* intended to be a "drop-in" replacement for *GNULIB*?

No.
https://sourceware.org/newlib/
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/MODULES.html

Roughly:
Newlib target is to provide a system libc.

Gnulib target is to provide a modular library implementation for 
software that aim on multi-platform builds.

Regards
Marco

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2123 bytes --]

On 09/10/2015 02:40 PM, David A Cobb wrote:
> I see the Git Repo for "the core Cygwin libraries and utilities (Cygwin
> and Newlib)" @ sourceware.com.
> 
> 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?

The official upstream repo, or something that tracks the cygwin deltas?
I don't (currently) maintain the cygwin deltas in git; what you see in
the setup.exe source package downloads is all I've ever published. If
you really have something to patch for coreutils that is cygwin-specific
rather than upstream, then maybe I can revisit this and expose a repo
somewhere (I absolutely refuse to use github as the primary location,
because that site unfortunately encourages non-free practices, but it
wouldn't stop you from setting up a github mirror to whatever other
place I would publish).  But first post such cygwin-specific patches to
this list, to prove that the work to set up and maintain a repo of
patches is going to be worth my time.

> 
> Just to save net traffic, I'll dare post a second related question in
> the same message:
> Is *NEWLIB* intended to be a "drop-in" replacement for *GNULIB*?

Not even close to one another.  Think of newlib as a [near] drop-in
replacement for glibc, and gnulib as a set of source files for adding
portability across multiple platforms (gnulib is closer to what boost
does for C++).  Cygwin requires newlib (I'm not sure why it did not
choose glibc, but suspect that it is probably more of a licensing reason
than a technical reason) in order to provide libc, but does not need to
use gnulib (there is no need for providing cross-platform compatibility
when compiling cygwin1.dll for a specific platform).  Meanwhile,
projects like coreutils include portions of gnulib (so coreutils can be
compiled for more than just cygwin) but not newlib (because it relies on
dynamic linking against the system libc).

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 604 bytes --]

Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.

[David A Cobb]

On 2015-09-10 17:03, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 22:40, David A Cobb wrote:
>> I see the Git Repo for "the core Cygwin libraries and utilities (Cygwin
>> and Newlib)" @ sourceware.com.
>>
>> 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

Yeah, Marco.  Thanks.
Actually, the repo is <git://git.savannah.gnu.org/coreutils.git>.

Are you saying that is your direct upstream and your sources only differ 
by the patchfiles installed by Cygwin-Setup??


>>
>> Just to save net traffic, I'll dare post a second related question in
>> the same message:
>> Is *NEWLIB* intended to be a "drop-in" replacement for *GNULIB*?
>

> No.
> https://sourceware.org/newlib/
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/MODULES.html
>
> Roughly:
> Newlib target is to provide a system libc.
>
> Gnulib target is to provide a modular library implementation for 
> software that aim on multi-platform builds.
> Regards
> Marco
>
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'.

Suppose I wanted to propose a patch to Coreutils, but being stuck on a 
Windows platform I use Coreutils only through Cygwin64 and MSYS2.
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.

BTW, and totally irrelevant to the discussion, I'm not really a newbie 
here.  But for several years I had a working Ubuntu installation, so I 
didn't keep up with the list.  And now, I'm back on a borrowed Windows 
machine.  I just want to do some useful stuff on it.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2731 bytes --]

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
> 
> Yeah, Marco.  Thanks.
> Actually, the repo is <git://git.savannah.gnu.org/coreutils.git>.
> 
> 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'.
> 
> 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).

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 604 bytes --]

Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.

[David A Cobb]

On 2015-09-10 19:31, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 05:20 PM, David A Cobb wrote:
>
> 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).
OK, I think I've got it.  At my advanced age, it's hard to be sure ;-D.

Thank you Eric, Marco, and Corrina.  Especially for your patience when 
more research would probably have answered a lot of things.

I'm made especially sensitive because, once on a very long ago, I asked 
a question about 'newlib' and Windows in the same sentence, and had my 
posterior handed back to me on a platter with the advice that anything 
with my name on it would be instantly disapproved by the newlib owner.



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple