next net release preliminary info

DJ Delorie
Wed Jan 26 20:07:00 GMT 2000

> I like the way debian number their packages with the "upstream" version
> as the most significant, and the "debian" version as the least
> significant.

You mean like gcc-2.95.2-1 ?  Red Hat does that too, and I can see
good reason to adopt it for cygwin ports as well.  The key issue with
something like cygwin is also identifying which version of the *other*
packages were used to build it, like the cygwin version or binutils
version.  Just bumping the last number is sufficient, but not ideal.

> For packages like the GNU fileutils etc, will the source tarballs
> include the original source + patches (similar to debian) or pre-patched
> source files?

I think it's up to the person doing the port, but if it were I, I
would provide the original .tar.gz, a diff.gz, and a binary tar.gz.  I
prefer having the diffs separate so I (1) can submit it to the
maintainers easily, and (2) remember what to check for when the next
version comes out.

> * More work for the package maintainer. (Hmm, not good... :-)

Not really.  You just have to untar the original sources and run diff.
Plus, having a diff handy helps with other steps.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list