Andriy Podanenko wrote:
> Hello Earnie,
> Friday, September 5, 2003, 3:45:14 PM, you wrote:
> EB> Andriy Podanenko wrote:
>>>ported to mingw and tested
> EB> Assuming that you built this for host mingw32, you will need to use
> EB> --prefix=/mingw
> and so - how to bzip2 that package?
> I make so (this is for binary only)
> configure --prefix=/usr/install/$PKGNAME
This is needed for the libtool support file and the share/aclocal files.
Our suggested prefix and installation directory for packages we offer
is /mingw. We need to make sure that any configuration files
distributed by the library package looks in the suggested prefix.
> make install
Here you can ``make install prefix=/usr/install/$PKGNAME'' as the GNU
standards specify that the ``make install'' step is not supposed to
change the compiled prefix. If it does, it is not a GNU standard package.
> cd /usr/install/$PKGNAME && tar -cf * && bzip2 -z *.tar
> this is not wrong, because if U decompress package U will have
> the same as on the sf.net/projects/mingw
I don't understand your point. When the user downloads the package,
they will want to:
tar -jxf foo.tar.bz2
This should put the libraries in lib/, the documentation in doc/, the
include files in include/, etc.
> EB> in the configuration. Also when the package is archived
> EB> one directory tree level too high. I.E.: The unarchive needs to install
> EB> to bin/, lib/, etc. You are also missing a doc/log4cpp/ directory that
> EB> should contain the licensing file from the source package (E.G.:
> EB> COPYING.LIB)
> AUTHORS of original package didn't copy that file when do make install, so why I need do
> that(in binary distribution)? But if it is important - I`ll do it of
The reason is due to the statements in the license itself and the fact
that I like it that way. It makes sense to show the license outside of
the binary before the user begins to use it.
> EB> , any pertenate README type of file, a PORTNOTES file that
> EB> contains highlevel notes on what you needed to do to build the package.
> Ok, I understand, if i want to make port I must to make patch for the
> source only!
> EB> and a PORTPATCH file of the ``diff -u3p original modified'' output. If
> EB> you have no modifications then the PORTPATCH file should state that. A
> EB> ``cvs diff'' can also be used if you have a local cvs directory setup.
> EB> Also, take a look at http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml#hdr4 for tips
> EB> on MinGW package naming conventions.
> why naming conversion for official release of original package?
We are offering the prebuild packages. The names allow us to upload
different build versions of the same source version. We add -src to the
source file to make it obvious.
> sorry for my words, but I came to mingw from FreeBSD and use BSD ports tree for
> developing and porting(may be I can help to build such tree for
> msys( http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ ) ?
> What U say?), so my mind is distored by FreeBSD`s policy.
Your words are fine. We have discussed MinGW [free|open]BSD style ports
before. Two porters were to look at it. There is a ports subdirectory
in CVS. Hasn't gone far. You may press forward with it. I can allow
you write access to the ports directory of CVS if you wish.