Re: strange source packaging?

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

>>  http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html
>
> Wow.  Insightful email.

as usual...

> Well, I guess I haven't been paying much attention to your and Robert's
> packages.  I'd forgotten that I'd suggested that we package as we see
> fit and foolishly looked to what I supposed was the final word on the
> subject.

It's been a bit of a mess.  In my original email to this thread, I
summarized the three packaging styles (I won't call them standards) that are
currently, actually, in use.

That doesn't mean I think having 3 different styles -- only one of which is
actually documented somewhere official -- is a good idea.  OTOH, since the
longwinded discussion last November (and its resolution sans an actual
standard), Robert and I (and a few others) have been "standardizing" one way
(which was a compromise in and of itself).  So there are only 3 extant
styles, not 47.  Which is something.

> I'll just leave the documentation as is so we can have this truly
> delightful conversation again in a couple of months.

Actually, if there's no opposition (hah!) I'll update the documentation to
reflect the current situation (e.g. 3 styles) -- but I'd like to mark one of
them as the preferred style for new packages.  Hopefully mine and robert's
style. ;-)

> Yeah, yeah.  I don't need another 183 line justification message,
> thanks.  I've got it.

Chris, in private mail I would've just sent you the one link and I *know*
that would've been sufficient.  However, on a public list a little more
info, background, and justification is needed -- if only to forestall the
inevitable hue and cry.

> The wget packaging is just peachy.

<g>

--Chuck