docs: improve package maintainer instructions
Mon Aug 4 19:28:00 GMT 2014
On 08/04/2014 03:14 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I'm fine with the changes, barring Yaakov's nits.
I fixed those.
> However, while we're at it shouldn't we change from "cygport is the
> accepted way to make Cygwin packages" to "cygport is the required way to
> make new Cygwin packages and the (strongly) recommended way for package
> updates"? I for one think it's time to switch to a single packaging
> method. After all, you don't have rpm packages in Debian or apt
> packages in Fedora. This will also greatly simplify to set up an
> automated build system for Cygwin packages at one point.
Agreed; so here's what I added in before pushing my patch:
@@ -283,9 +288,12 @@ etc...
<li>Ensure that your package handles being installed on binary and
text mounts correctly. </li>
-<p>While you could make a package satisfying these requirements by
-accepted way to make Cygwin packages is using the cygport tool, which
-automatically handles most of the above issues for you.</p>
+<p>While older packages exist which satisfy these requirements by hand, the
+only accepted way to make a new Cygwin package is using the cygport
+automatically handles most of the above issues for you. It is also
+strongly recommended to convert existing packages to cygport when
+updating them; ask on the <tt>cygwin-apps</tt> list if you need help
+converting an existing package to use cygport.</p>
<h2><a id="making_srcpackage" name="making_srcpackage">Making a package
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 539 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Cygwin-patches