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: update - ccdoc 08.41 is ready for experimentation

Christopher Faylor wrote:

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::// instructions as closely as possible.  In
doing so, I ran across a number of things that appeared different than
last time:

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.

I can see that now.

2. The patch file was supposed to be hard coded to /usr/src/foo-vendor-release.patch.

There are two patch methods and I don't believe that they have changed substantially in years.

I am sure that you are right. I saw the two different patch methods but I thought that the documentation said that the preferred method was to that "this file should extract as: /usr/src/...". I interpreted that to mean a hard-coded reference in the tarfile.

When I re-submitted this request as an update, I changed the patch so that it used the old method.

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.

You are correct. I will be more vigilant in the future. Thanks for pointing this out.


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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