package lint suggestions

[Charles Wilson]

Warren Young wrote:
> - Missing README 

There's no real requirement for that, even if your package DOES have a 
cygwin-specific README. It's not like txt documentation needs a "source" 
to satisfy the GPL or something.

> and setup.hint in the -src.tar.bz2.  (No cygwin.patch)

And there's definitely no call for this. I only include 'em because 
cygport makes me do that.  But here's something that bugs me:

If I create a new package, but want to put it in "test" for a week or 
two -- then I can't really use the setup.hint *in* the package when I 
upload it to sources.  The one *in* the package doesn't know that it's 
going to be in 'test' for a week, and I certainly don't want to create a 
brand new -src package so that I can update the internal setup.hint when 
I /do/ move it from 'test' to 'curr'.

So, except when I am *first* uploading a *brand new* package to sources, 
I usually do this:

$ cd foo-1.2.3-1/dist
$ find . -name "setup.hint" | xargs rm -f
$ tar cvf ../../foo-1.2.3-1.tar

and upload just my tarballs, and not the setup.hints ('cause they are 
already up there. If they need changing, I'll do that in situ.)


Just because cygport forces you to work in one way is no reason to 
assume that the overall cygwin project has requirements quite that 
restrictive.  (And besides, if you ARE using cygport, IT will warn you 
about those two issues. But IMO it's your choice to obey or ignore those 
cygport warnings)

--
Chuck