Anomalies in Source Distributions

Anomalies in Source Distributions

[Philip Brown]

For whatever it's worth, I've come across the following anomalies which look
like very minor configuration control bugs in the Cygwin source
distributions (but what do I know ;-)

patchutils-0.2.22-2.src.tar.bz2 - There appears to be a configuration
control problem.  If you expand the source, it is located in a directory
called patchutils-0.2.22-1, instead of -2.

textutils-2.0.21-1.src.tar.bz2 - Similar to above.  Expand the source and
the directory is named textutils-2.0.21 instead of textutils-2.0.21-1.

cygutils-1.2.4-1.tar.bz2 - The doc files have 1.2.4 instead of 1.2.4-1 on
them in the .tar.bz2 file (due to .sh script).  Specifically:
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/AUTHORS
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/BRANCHES
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/COPYING
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/HOW-TO-CONTRIBUTE
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/NEWS
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/PROGLIST
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/README
   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/TODO
   /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/cygutils-1.2.4.README

sharutils-4.2.1-3 - Similar to above for file:
   /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/sharutils.README
   which should be sharutils-4.2.1-3.README per your configuration system to
the best of my understanding.

--Phil Brown


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

Re: Anomalies in Source Distributions

[Larry Hall]

At 01:08 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
>For whatever it's worth, I've come across the following anomalies which look
>like very minor configuration control bugs in the Cygwin source
>distributions (but what do I know ;-)

<snip>

>cygutils-1.2.4-1.tar.bz2 - The doc files have 1.2.4 instead of 1.2.4-1 on
>them in the .tar.bz2 file (due to .sh script).  Specifically:
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/AUTHORS
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/BRANCHES
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/COPYING
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/HOW-TO-CONTRIBUTE
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/NEWS
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/PROGLIST
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/README
>   /usr/share/doc/cygutils-1.2.4/TODO


No, this is fine.  These files are typically provided as part of the upstream
release of a package so they don't know about Cygwin package release numbers,
which is what the "-<number>" format is.


>   /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/cygutils-1.2.4.README
>
>sharutils-4.2.1-3 - Similar to above for file:
>   /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/sharutils.README
>   which should be sharutils-4.2.1-3.README per your configuration system to
>the best of my understanding.


No.  The prescribed approach from <http://cygwin.com/setup.html> is:

  In your binary package, include a file /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-  
  suffix.README containing (at a minimum) the information needed for an end 
  user to recreate the package. This includes CFLAGS settings, configure 
  parameters, etc. 

This doesn't say any package version number is a requirement.  There are 
benefits to leaving the number off (i.e. the same file applies to any 
version).



--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     


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

Re: Anomalies in Source Distributions

[Bas van Gompel]

Op Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:46:57 -0400
schreef Larry Hall <cygwin-lh te cygwin.com>
in <6.1.0.6.0.20040422133723.038e2548@127.0.0.1>:
:  At 01:08 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
                          ^^^
"Philip Brown" <pbrown00 uit earthlink.net>, not me.

[...]
: > sharutils-4.2.1-3 - Similar to above for file:
: >    /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/sharutils.README
: >   which should be sharutils-4.2.1-3.README per your configuration system to
: > the best of my understanding.
:
:
:   No.  The prescribed approach from <http://cygwin.com/setup.html> is:
:
:    In your binary package, include a file /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-  
:    suffix.README containing (at a minimum) the information needed for an end 
:    user to recreate the package. This includes CFLAGS settings, configure 
:    parameters, etc. 
:
:  This doesn't say any package version number is a requirement.  There are 
:  benefits to leaving the number off (i.e. the same file applies to any 
:  version).

Then, what is meant by ``-vendor-suffix'' in the above quotation?

L8r,

Buzz.
-- 
  ) |  | ---/ ---/  Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not
--  |  |   /    /   really is |   and false bits entirely.    | mail for
  ) |  |  /    /    a 72 by 4 +-------------------------------+ any1 but
--  \--| /--- /---  .sigfile. |   |perl -pe "s.u(z)\1.as."    | me. 4^re

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

Re: Anomalies in Source Distributions

[Larry Hall]

At 04:03 PM 4/27/2004, you wrote:
>Op Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:46:57 -0400
>schreef Larry Hall <cygwin-lh te cygwin.com>
>in <6.1.0.6.0.20040422133723.038e2548@127.0.0.1>:
>:  At 01:08 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
>                          ^^^
>"Philip Brown" <pbrown00 uit earthlink.net>, not me.
>
>[...]
>: > sharutils-4.2.1-3 - Similar to above for file:
>: >    /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/sharutils.README
>: >   which should be sharutils-4.2.1-3.README per your configuration system to
>: > the best of my understanding.
>:
>:
>:   No.  The prescribed approach from <http://cygwin.com/setup.html> is:
>:
>:    In your binary package, include a file /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor-  
>:    suffix.README containing (at a minimum) the information needed for an end 
>:    user to recreate the package. This includes CFLAGS settings, configure 
>:    parameters, etc. 
>:
>:  This doesn't say any package version number is a requirement.  There are 
>:  benefits to leaving the number off (i.e. the same file applies to any 
>:  version).
>
>Then, what is meant by ``-vendor-suffix'' in the above quotation?


That would be the "4.2.1" for the sharutils example above.  It's the upstream
version numbers, not the Cygwin-specific release number.


--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     


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