This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] setup -e, --separate-src-dirs option
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 08:02:12PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 07:38:14AM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
>>> It is actually difficult to guess the origin of some source files. For
>>> example:
>>>
>>> /usr/src/0.19-data-auto-imports.patch (from flexdll-0.26-1)
>>> /usr/src/blacklist.txt (from ca-cerficates-*)
>>> /usr/src/config-rpath.patch (from some gcc-* ?)
>> That's not difficult. It's trivial to figure out where these files
>> came from.
>
>Even if this is the case (it IMO isn't), there is at least one other
>drawback.
I don't understand your opinion. Run "tar vtjf" over all of the source
.tar.bz2 files and you can figure out where things came from. If we decide
that this is necessary then, that can be done once on sourceware for all
.tar.bz2 files and the files can be changed.
>Due to missing version numbers in some names, it is impossible
>to keep several versions of the same package in /usr/src.
What does that have to do with the issue? If everybody thinks that
packages should all extract to a versioned subdirectory then that should
just be what packages do without help from setup.exe.
>>I still don't understand the need for this.
>
>Please note that I suggested to *keep* the old behavior and let the
>*user* opt-in for the new one. I actually missed that feature since I
>started to use Cygwin many years ago.
There seems to be a communication disconnect here. I'm not saying that
it isn't a great idea for every package to install in it's own special
subdirectory. I am saying that if everyone agrees that it's a good idea
then we can enforce that for source packages. Whether you have disliked
the current behavior for years is irrelevant. I think you're right and
the "dump everything in the current directory" behavior of most of the
current packages has bugged me too.
>> If everyone thinks it's
>> a good idea than why don't we eschew code bloat and make package
>> developers use this technique. Otherwise, unless you inspect the
>> source files, you'll be adding a separate layer of directory to
>> /usr/src for packages that don't need it.
>
>Another more complex approach would be: Examine the
>PACKAGE-VERSION-src.tar.bz file first. If all top level names start with
>(or contain?) PACKAGE-VERSION, install in /usr/src, else install in
>/usr/src/PACKAGE-VERSION. But I will not provide such a patch this year :-)
Hmm. Or maybe the disconnect was running paragraph by paragraph. You
at least seemed to understand that there would be an issue with packages
that already install to a directory.
The bottom line is that I'm arguing against adding more code to
setup.exe which would need to be maintained when a much simpler solution
could be enforced that requires no setup.exe code change.
cgf