This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] generic-build-script


On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:

> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> >
> > > Max Bowsher wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Of course, normally these are the same, but in my case they are not.
> > > > Therefore, the following patch changes all occurrences where ${BASEPKG}
> > > > is
> > > > used in the second sense to ${PKG}-${VER}, so that ${BASEPKG} may be
> > > > redefined in my case.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Max,
> > >
> > > My two cents:
> > >
> > > Stick a comment above the definition for BASEPKG to explain the scenario
> > > where BASEPKG and PKG-VER will be different... otherwise you'll get
> > > dorks like me thinking that a patch reversing your patch would be
> > > useful, and such a thing must just slip in by accident.  Of course, the
> > > comment would also help maintainers figure out that this feature is
> > > present and that they can use it.
> > >
> > > Since I've not written three times more words that would be in such a
> > > comment, I might as well give it a go:
> > >
> > > # NOTE: BASEPKG is "name-version" of the upstream package.  Usually this
> > > # is equal to ${PKG}-${VER}, except in the case where the Cygwin package
> > > # name is different than the upstream package name (e.g. upstream:
> > > # "foo-1.0" BASEPKG=foo-1.0, Cygwin package: "bar-1.0" PKG=bar VER=1.0).
> > >
> > > Feel free to reword that.
> >
> > Good point, Harold.  In fact, looking at the ChangeLog, I was one of
> > those dorks. :-)
> >
> > The easiest solution would probably be to define two variables, BASEPKG
> > and ORIGPKG, and set them to the same value initially.  We'd still need a
> > comment describing why there are two variables, and what ORIGPKG is useful
> > for.
> >
> > If BASEPKG seems better for the upstream package name, I'm open to
> > suggestions for the name of the variable containing the ${PKG}-${REL}
> > combo.
>
> Hmm. It seemed sort-of elegant to me to just use ${PKG}-${VER}, rather than
> defining another variable.
> I'd go with just a comment.

Fair enough.  Want to resubmit the patch with the comment?

> If not, how about names:
>
> BASEPKG
> CYGPKG_NV
> CYGPKG_NVR
>
> or
>
> BASEPKG
> SHORTPKG
> FULLPKG
> ?

I like the latter, FWIW.  But we could go with ${PKG}-${VER} for now, and
factor it out into a variable later if it becomes a nuisance.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]