This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
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:I can see that now.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:06:21PM -0700, Joe Linoff wrote:No, but the setup.html specifically refers to "experimentation" in step
9 of the "submitting a package" guidelines.
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?
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.
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.
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.
When I re-submitted this request as an update, I changed the patch so
that it used the old method.
You are correct. I will be more vigilant in the future. Thanks for
pointing this out.
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.
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.