Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: mintty 2.9.9

[Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz@cygwin.com>]

On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 21:02 +0100, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Am 25.03.2019 um 19:12 schrieb Achim Gratz:
> > Thomas Wolff writes:
> > > Sorry, I neither know how to make use of such a package nor how to
> > > generate it or what it contains.
> > > But I'd take a patch:)
> > As you wish…
> I used to use tar rather than cygport package to generate the packages.
> One reason was that I didn’t want my local user/group to appear in them.

They won't show up like that once installed.

> Is that possible with cygport?

Not currently, PTC.

> Trying cygport package, a bunch of problems arise:
> 
> I removed -s as suggested by Achim, added -g as advised by Corinna, but 
> cygport still says:
> *** Info: No debug files, skipping debuginfo subpackage

That's because you are still overriding CFLAGS with := (the first
time).

> Achim also suggested some changes in the cygport file:
> #SRC_URI="https://github.com/${NAME}/release/${NAME}-${VERSION}-src.tar.bz2"
> SRC_URI="https://github.com/${NAME}/${NAME}/archive/${VERSION}.tar.gz"
> → While it’s proper to retrieve the archive (if needed at all; why does 
> cygport refer to this if the package is locally available?) from the 
> release area, and not from the separate “release” repository, 
> unfortunately it’s github URL does not include the “mintty-” prefix 
> (it’s just 2.9.9.tar.gz) which causes the source package generated by 
> cygport to be empty:
>  >>> Creating source package
> /bin/cp: cannot stat '/cygdrive/d/home/mintty/release/2.9.9.tar.gz': No 
> such file or directory
> But apparently it's also sufficient to provide a dummy url:
> SRC_URI="${NAME}-${VERSION}-src.tar.bz2"

The correct value is:

SRC_URI="
https://github.com/${NAME}/${NAME}/archive/${VERSION}/${NAME}-${VERSION}.tar.gz
"

SRC_URI="https://github.com/${NAME}/${NAME}/archive/${VERSION}/${NAME}-${VERSION}.tar.gz"

With your Makefile creating that file name instead of -src.tar.bz2.

> VERSION="2.9.9"
> → This would need the cygport to be generated per version, but 
> apparently it’s not required.
> RELEASE="1"
> → This does not seem to have any effect either.

Only because of how you handle your cygport build, which is *much* more
complicated than it should be.

> Furthermore, cygport complains (on Windows 7 only):
> which: no gdiplus.dll in (...)
> → It’s in $WINDIR/SysWOW64/.

Actually, it's a side-by-side assembly under $WINDIR/WinSxS/ on Win7
x64.  In any case, that can be ignored.

>  >>> mintty requires: bash cygwin
> I remember some discussion that the cygwin dependency, which most 
> packages have, should not (or does not need to be) listed.

That was years ago.  The cygwin dependency can and should be listed
nowadays.

> And in fact, mintty does not depend on bash. Why does cygport think so?

mintheme has a /bin/sh shebang.

> As an alternative, I would accept a description how to generate a debug 
> package "manually", with tar.

Ugly.  Let cygport do this for you.

--
Yaakov



--
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