This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: update - ccdoc 08.41 is ready for experimentation
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:33:50PM -0700, Joe Linoff wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:06:21PM -0700, Joe Linoff wrote:
>>>I am afraid that I am not sure what you mean by beta-test but I don't
>>>think that the program needs to be tested at all.
>>Any reason for sending this multiple times?
>>What everyone seems to be missing is this:
>>ccdoc is already part of the distribution.
>>That's what I mean by "beta test". I don't understand why you'd send a
>>"ready for experimentation" message here. Do you see any other messages
>>like that in this mailing list?
>No, but the setup.html specifically refers to "experimentation" in step
>9 of the "submitting a package" guidelines.
That was a poor choice of words (it was probably mine) but it wasn't referring
to cygwin-apps, anyway.
>>I'm thoroughly confused. You are the package maintainer but you, and
>>everyone else are treating this like a new experience.
>It is a new experience, sort of. This time I tried to the follow the
>http:://cygwin.com/setup.html instructions as closely as possible. In
>doing so, I ran across a number of things that appeared different than
>1. Version number appeared to be <major>.<minor>.
The page says:
"Package naming scheme: use the vendor's version plus a release suffix
for ports of existing packages..."
No one is forcing you to do make it <major>.<minor>. There are a
number of examples of packages which are more than just <major>.<minor>
but a really obvious one is the cygwin DLL itself.
>2. The patch file was supposed to be hard coded to
There are two patch methods and I don't believe that they have
changed substantially in years.
>3. Binary release files went to /usr/share/man and /usr/share/doc.
>I think that is where I got into trouble.
It sounds like where you really got into trouble was not following the
discussion about packages that has gone on since you last submitted
ccdoc. As a package maintainer, you should be subscribed to cygwin-apps
and you should be at least monitoring discussions about changes to
package conventions (like moving from /usr/man to /usr/share/man). None
of this should be a surprise.