RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug

[Robert Collins <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>]

On 29 Aug 2001 15:09:46 +0200, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Collins [ mailto:robert.collins@itdomain.com.au ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:01 AM
> > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
> > 
> > 
> > Ok... I slept through most of this thread :}. I'm going to 
> > make a couple
> > of comments though... to no particular poster/answer.

(*)

> > Bernard, I'm not sure how the above underlined comment, when combined
> > with....
<snip>
> It would be if the second statement was due to John... 

Oops. Well that does make a difference! Remind be not to assume the >
imply the same author.

> In fact I think who's giving John's its paycheck has no importance here;
> he's producing and using open/free source code, so must obey the rules. 

I didn't mean to imply paycheck creator, rather
use-to-which-code-is-put. 

> The
> only thing I say is that he must not be suspected of not obeying them, as
> producing free source should deserve checking before complaining.

Absolutely agree. Interpretation is all, as usual.
 
> Not knowing what is scheduled is obscuring th edebate; knowing for example
> that there will be a change to the -src special handling (meaning some more
> general solution will be provided) makes perfect sense at refusing the
> -cygwin special handling, but was far from evident from the initial
> discussion.

You might want to subscribe to cygwin-developers to know what is
scheduled, or look in the archives. cygwin@cygwin.com is the general
discussion forum, and cygwin-apps is for ported applications. Setup.exe
is neither.

The problem with -src is that it a) precludes having multiple packages
which are created from the same source (ie libfoo (.dll and binaries) +
foo-devel (headers and .a files) come from foo-source - the -src
convention means we need libfoo-src + foo-devel-src which would be the
same file duplicated :[ and b) is non-inutitive to use in setup.exe -
how do you as a user install sshd-2.95p4 and download the source to
sshd-2.95p5 which has a bug you want to fix (which is why you want the
p4 binary)

So sources should be explicit metadata, not inferred from the name
metadata. As to how and when... thats a different story :}.

> OK, I can understand that, but the problem was not explained, just the fact
> that the feature was getting in the "mixed feelings" category which need
> further advice from developers.

And the developers (all ?5?6? for setup.exe) haven't had time to
comment. The whole thread occured whilst I was asleep... except maybe
John's inital request, which I read, and figured as I couldn't provide
an authoritative answer I'd just wait and see what came up before
jumping in. 

> PS: Note that in the above message, only the every first quote was from me,
> while you seem to say that you were answering to my post...

Uhmm, late at work again? See (*) above :]

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/