This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Guile 1.5.6-2 available for review
- From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke at gnu dot org>
- To: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:28:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: Guile 1.5.6-2 available for review
- Organization: Jan at Appel
- References: <email@example.com> <3D25247F.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Charles Wilson <email@example.com> writes:
> Packaging structure looks pretty good to me. There's a small bug in
> the (native) buildscript [an unclosed 'if' block in prep()] but that's
> no big deal.
Duh. Thanks. Somehow, I included the previous, untested, version.
This is fixed for -3.
> As far as the "ridiculously big" patch goes, I wouldn't worry. There
> are two ways to go
> big patch: easy to create, easier on end-builders (they don't need
> the autotools) -- but it's big
> small patch: it's small, but hard to maintain, and harder on the
> end-builders (they must have the autotools installed)
> I dunno, which one would you pick? :-)
I'm picking both :) The cross build scripts hold the 'master' patch,
the end-builders get the automagically generated full and
I wonder when GNU will drop the silly 'standard unix make' requirement
for tools that can reasonably be expected to be ported 'later' than
make (or when maintainers will just no longer do it). GNU make is
such a fine tool (as long as you're sticking to convential style
make). You can drop all the Makefile.in, Makefile, .dep precooking
and distribution, and with it go the large patches and unreadable
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <firstname.lastname@example.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org