Hi Daniel,
[...]
Well, beside the fact that you don't provide a patch to restore the
original source archive. This is the main (?) reason to provide the
patch, it is there to get back the official sources.
Grr @!%$, forgot to put it into the source archive again :) Fixed.
The original source archive contains a Makefile, which you removed.
No, mine doesn't. The original download site for psutils seems to be
down for the past few days, so I got the source from a mirror. It did
not contain a file named Makefile. Does your's?
Yes, it does ;-). I got the sources from:
<http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/psutils.html>, there I found
psutils_1.17.orig.tar.gz.
BTW, My first release of the source package contained a Makefile
which I removed, because *you* (spotlight on :-) said it was *not* in
the original source.
That was a misunderstanding, as "my" unpatched sources had a
Makefile (that was different from your Makefile) I thought you
overwrote it.
You also added the CYGWIN-PATCHES dir (This is good, but it's not
in the original sources.
http://cygwin.com/setup.html told me to. Isn't this the usual way to
include Cygwin-specific stuff?
It is the correct way.
I attached a patch that IMHO does it right. I also "modified" the
already present $(prefix) variable that you now can do:
Looks good. I modified the Makefile.unix and README accordingly.
Fine, :-) I'll have a look later today. Can you give me a link where you
found "your" original psutils_1.17 sources.
Bye
Volker