This is the mail archive of the 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: [Review - not yet] Re: [ITP] tree

On Dec 18 17:16, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stipe Tolj wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > 5) There are no port notes in the Cygwin-specific README, even though
> > >    there are some user-visible changes in the patch, such as changing the
> > >    prefix to /usr and removing the "-s" linker flag (any particular reason
> > >    why you did that?)
> >
> > -s linker flag put in place again (was a simple typo). So we get
> > stripping again. I don't see any needs for port notes to be honest.
> Well, I think changing the prefix from /usr/local to /usr is a pretty
> serious change, in a sense that someone familiar with the package and
> wanting to install it on their system will download it, run "make; make
> install", and get the packages in /usr/bin instead of /usr/local/bin where
> they would expect them.  IMO, it deserves a mention in the port notes, but
> I'm not going to hold up the release of a package because of this.

Do I understand that right?  There's a patch which changes the default
prefix?  Is it really necessary to patch the package to install into /usr
by default?  That sounds rather superfluous and irritating.  Usually,
when a user calls `configure', the default prefix is /usr/local and
if that's not what the user wants, she calls `configure --prefix=/usr'.
Better add a Cygwin README which tells the user which configure options
to use to create the Cygwin net release package.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                      
Red Hat, Inc.

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