This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [64bit] Biber packaging questions
- From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko at nexgo dot de>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:43:17 +0200
- Subject: Re: [64bit] Biber packaging questions
- References: <51B8813F dot 6060207 at cornell dot edu> <20130612151802 dot GH30807 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <CAHiT=DEnVwCy+S-oYM7LUCmHk2o1K6s+-jPTyfhHg8Wh7HHyiQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51BB65D4 dot 6090607 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <CAHiT=DEzXn_duPSHmjg=T2vMHEGLiptxC0rpFY-YANjcYpVniA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87vc5fbld5 dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <51BDA3AA dot 3000704 at cornell dot edu>
Ken Brown writes:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the need for bundle
Certainly there is no need to bundle in many cases. But if there is
(like with perl_vendor), I think it is easy.
> Take the example of biber. I had to build a bunch of perl-*
> packages, and cygport figured out the dependencies among them and the
> dependencies of biber. A user who installs biber automatically gets
> the necessary Perl modules without ever having to look at them in the
> chooser. How would a bundle make this easier?
Not at all for the runtime dependencies.
> A few of the perl-* packages are needed for building biber but not for
> using it. I took care of these by setting DEPEND in the .cygport
> files. So people who want to replicate the build will need to select
> the necessary packages [listed by cygport] in the chooser. A bundle
> would admittedly make this easier.
Yes, this is one of the things I use bundles for, although not for each
package. I've just bundled all the distributions that I need for
building (but not at runtime) seperately, since those do not need to be
installed on machines that are not used for building.
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
Samples for the Waldorf Blofeld: