experimental texmf packages

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

"Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au> writes:

> Build environments to recreate a -src package need
> a) pristine source TARBALL.
> b) patch for current -x version
> c) extracted and patched working dir.

> the pre-patch -src requirement has been. See
> http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html. No mention of a prepatched source
> tarball is made at all.

Ah, ok.  I'm just used to those, as I'm rebuilding from available
patched -src packages if possible.
Do we already have -src packages that adhere to this new convention?

If it's not too late, it would be very nice if they could be
distinguished from the old, prepatched -src packages, by using a
different naming convention, ie foo-1.1-cyg.tar.gz?

> >     mv foo-1.1 foo-1.1-1
> 
> Not sure why you're bothering to rename this.

My bad, I was thinking of tarring up the patched src tarball.

> do porting. So the point is that if RPM had been contributed, and you
> maintain *just that one package* as an official package

Ok, but I had conflicting interest: I needed all packages now to
provide lilypond, and couldn't maintain them all for cygwin.  Also, I
assumed, had an rpm or other port caught on, the mirroring at cygnus
would have worked.

> That hasn't changed - mingw doesn't aim for posix support.

Ok.

> BTW: can you freshed up your postremove patch? I'd like that to be
> included in setup.

Yes, will do.

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/