This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.
- From: David A Cobb <superbiskit at cox dot net>
- To: eblake at redhat dot com, Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:54:27 -0400
- Subject: Re: Repositories for Cygwin packages.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: cox.net; auth=pass (CRAM-MD5) smtp dot auth=superbiskit at cox dot net
- References: <55F1EAA8 dot 5020806 at cox dot net> <FZ3x1r00P2qVqVd01Z3ytt> <55F2102B dot 70900 at cox dot net> <FbXq1r00M2qVqVd01bXrPy>
- Reply-to: Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
On 2015-09-10 19:31, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/10/2015 05:20 PM, David A Cobb wrote:
Not a problem. My first patch to upstream coreutils was done exactly
in that manner.
And, suppose for the moment, some of the changes are only relevant to
the Windows platform. I don't (yet) know how much GNU (i.e. RMS) really
gives a flying bird about making Windows play nice. So, to whom do I
propose the changes? I really, really don't want to create a private
fork. If I didn't think my ideas are worthy of pushing up the food
chain, I should just go back to bed.
Depends on how invasive your changes are. If it is truly
windows-specific and hard to maintain, then upstream probably won't pay
attention (which is why I maintain some cygwin-specific patches, such as
.exe magic manipulations, downstream-only). But if it fixes a bad
upstream assumption (such as "function foo would never do that", except
that on cygwin function foo DOES do that, and it is feasible that some
other system would do likewise), then upstream is the right place. (For
example, my very first patch to upstream coreutils is dated 2005-01-11,
where I fixed Makefile.am to deal with $(EXEEXT) - and more than just
cygwin creates binaries with .exe suffix so it is relevant upstream).
If you're unsure whether a proposed patch is worth posting upstream or
downstream, pick one place, and I'm more than willing to help you
redirect it to the other place if it wasn't appropriate. (Picking
upstream first is generally a nicer policy).
OK, I think I've got it. At my advanced age, it's hard to be sure ;-D.
Thank you Eric, Marco, and Corrina. Especially for your patience when
more research would probably have answered a lot of things.
I'm made especially sensitive because, once on a very long ago, I asked
a question about 'newlib' and Windows in the same sentence, and had my
posterior handed back to me on a platter with the advice that anything
with my name on it would be instantly disapproved by the newlib owner.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple