This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Dedup x86/x86_64 --> noarch
- From: Jon Turney <jon dot turney at dronecode dot org dot uk>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 15:38:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: Dedup x86/x86_64 --> noarch
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87zistg99v dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <571B539D dot 4050304 at dronecode dot org dot uk> <87r3dwo1aj dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20160423153230 dot GK15916 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <87mvoknxew dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid>
On 23/04/2016 16:43, Achim Gratz wrote:
Corinna Vinschen writes:
The src packages would ideally be in a src subdir, parallel to the
noarch and $arch dirs.
Hmm, I'm not sure I'd like that.
The src packages are not generally arch-less. There are several
examples where either the cygport files, the patches or even the source
archives are arch-specific.
I think 'generally' is over-stating the case, the vast majority of
source packages should be arch-less.
If the source package really is arch-specific, then it should be marked
so with ARCH [1]
If it contains arch-specific patches, they should be made conditional on
ARCH.
[1] https://cygwinports.github.io/cygport/compilers_cygpart.html#robo872
> Of these, the .cygwin patches are almost
certainly spurious since they get time-stamped on creation. The other
differences most likely aren't, although it should be possible to
reconcile them in most cases.
But yes, this is not straightforward because the way we generate source
packages at the moment means there is no guarantee that the same source
package is used to build the different arch variants.
On another note, it still irks me that the debuginfo packages aren't
following the naming convention of the src packages; they should be
named ${PKG}-${PVR}-debuginfo.tar.xz and treated with their respective
box in setup.exe just like the sources.
We have the source code :)