This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: next net release preliminary info
- To: Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd at axonet dot com dot au>
- Subject: Re: next net release preliminary info
- From: Chris Faylor <cgf at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:49:01 -0500
- Cc: cygwin-developers at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <00F8D6E8AB0DD3118F1A006008186C9607C851@server1.axonet.com.au>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2000 at 02:45:46PM +1100, Andrew Dalgleish wrote:
>Just a thought...
>I like the way debian number their packages with the "upstream" version
>as the most significant, and the "debian" version as the least
>significant.
>This makes it easy to identify which upstream version you are using, and
>also allows for more than one package version.
That's not a bad idea. Doesn't Red Hat do something similar? I"m
embarassed to admit that I don't know.
>One question:
>For packages like the GNU fileutils etc, will the source tarballs
>include the original source + patches (similar to debian) or pre-patched
>source files?
>
>I prefer the former because:
>Pros:
>* A stand-alone patch helps document what had to change to make the
>package work under cygwin.
>* A patch for version X will often (?) work for version X+1.
>* One package maintainer computes the diff vs many package downloaders
>doing it, perhaps incorrectly.
>
>Cons:
>* Harder to build. (And hence more noise on the list)
>* More work for the package maintainer. (Hmm, not good... :-)
Hmm. I like the idea but the "Cons" scare me.
cgf