Op 04-06-10 16:43, Charles Wilson schreef:
> In this sense, by "review" I meant:
> 1) download the -src package, and ensure it can be used to generate
> the others easily. Are the documented "build-requires" and
> "runtime-requires" correct?
I didn't document build requirements. Requirements are very low. A
minimal old mingw installation is enough. The SDL version requires SDL,
but I didn't go that far yet.
There are no executables, so no runtime requires.
> 2) make sure the installed files are in the "correct" location
I think so.
> 3) is the licensing information present and accurate
> -- in the case of MSYS products, we need to ensure that the license
> is GPL or OSI compatible; otherwise distributing a
> binary linked against the msys DLL is a violation of msys'
> GPL-with-exception-for-OSI licensing terms
It is mainly public domain. License files are spread over the different
directories. I didn't want to add them all, I only added the main README.
> 4) Cursory check over any "original" documentation created for the
> MinGW/MSYS release; e.g. the contents of the
> file (and is it even present?)
It is present, perhaps it needs to be changed.
> 5) Other packaging issues. For instance, a library package like
> PDcurses, even if it doesn't yet include any DLLs, ought to put the
> headers and (static) libraries in a -dev package, not a -bin one
> (Erwin has done this correctly; I'm just pointing out a possible
> problem we'd need to check for with future contributions and
> Also, even in this case, the contents of the -dev package are;
> This tells me that the DLLs will have names like (dunno about the -N
> part, that probably depends on whether PDCurses uses libtool or not):
> So, the eventual -dll package should probably have a similar name:
> match the name of the DLLs, not the source "PDCurses" distribution
> Given that, should (even the current, static-only) -dev package ALSO be
> rather than
> We haven't really stated a policy either way, yet.
I was in doubt about the package name. pdcurses or libpdcurses. For now
I just copied the name that the project itself uses: PDCurses. With
three capital letters.
> In the future, new contributions should probably also be accompanied by
> suggested xml manifests, but the format of that is not yet well
> documented -- and in flux -- so there was no point in asking Erwin to do
> Not that I expect we'll try to add very many "official" packages at all;
> I really think, once mingw-get rolls out, that this would be the purview
> of some external cygwin-ports-like project(s).
> As far as "how it was built" I just wanted the information, primarily. I
> fully expected...
>>> pdc34dll.zip - Win32 DLL for console
>>> pdc34dllw.zip - Win32 DLL for console, with Unicode
>>> pdc34dllu.zip - Win32 DLL for console, with Unicode/UTF-8
>>> pdc34dlls.zip - Win32 DLL for SDL
>>> How was yours done? Should we have any preference? Should we provide
>>> more than one variant? etc etc. So...there's still a bit of discussion
>>> to be had, I'm sure.
> ...that the answer to these questions would be "No, we don't have any
> preference, and we shouldn't bother to provide more than one variant,
> and whichever variant Erwin picked is fine"
> But the questions needed to be asked, and answered -- especially in this
> case, because you KNOW exactly 3.2 seconds after Erwin uploads them,
> SOMEBODY is going to ask "Why didn't you provide a UTF-8 version?" and
> we're all going to say "Uh, huh? Whaddaya mean?" unless we've already
> considered the question, and answered it, here.
I would like to stick with the three static libraries for the first
build, and add DLLs and SDL later when I have more time.