Re: Splitting up cygwin packages

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Nov 23 13:38, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I'll probably regret mentioning this because it is a potential bikeshed
> issue but, here goes:
> 
> I suggested to Corinna that it would be nice to break up the cygwin package
> into four different packages:
> 
> - cygwin		Category: base
> 
> containing the dll
> 
> - cygwin-devel		Category: devel
> 
> containing headers and import libraries
> 
> - cygwin-server		Category: base(?)
> 
> containing cygserver and cyglsa
> 
> - cygwin-utils		Category: base
> 
> containing the content of winsup/utils
> 
> The versioning for all of the above would reflect the dll version.
> 
> There are two motivations here:
> 
> 1) Allow updating non-dll packages for important bug fixes which
> do not require a dll version bump (like the recent cygcheck bug).
> This would be a rare occurrence but it means that there could be,
> e.g., a cygwin-utils-1.7.27-2 package.  The utilities would report
> "1.7.27" while "cygcheck -c cygwin-utils" would report 1.7.27-2.

On second thought, I don't think this is feasible.  It's not done on
rpm-based systems either.  You're building all subpackages from a single
rpm spec file at once, and they are all uploaded together.  Even if only
a header changed in glibc-devel, the update will consist of all glibc
packages (and there are a couple of them) bumped to the new release.
The same holds true for cygport.  If I build all -2 or -3 packages in
one go anyway, I can upload all of them easily.  

> 2) Allow decoupling the development files from a normal installation
> for people who don't need the headers/libraries.
> 
> The change would mean that all devel packages would need to rely
> on cygwin-devel.  I'm willing to make that automatic in upset.
> 
> Packages which rely on the cygwin utils would obviously need to
> require: cygwin-utils, although since cygwin-utils is in the base
> category, it won't be a big issue.
> 
> We're tentatively thinking about starting this in 1.7.27.

On third thought I would rather opt for two packages only.
cygwin with everything in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, except dumper
and ssp., cygwin-devel with dumper, ssp, headers and libs.

> Am I missing anything else?  Does cygwin-server belong in the base
> category?

Yes.  No XSI IPC without cygserver.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: pgpymPTlKdNNe.pgp
Description: PGP signature