Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] [Mingw-users] mingw-get feature request

[Earnie <ea...@us...>]

Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 11/08/11 19:46, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> My intention is that it should unpack into the user's current working
>>> directory.  (I'm assuming that the top level directory within the source
>>> tarball itself will result in the creation of an appropriately named
>>> package specific subdirectory, below CWD).
>>
>> Very few of them do that, at present.
> 
> Any which I have packaged do.
> 
>> Most contain something like this:
>>
>> buildscript
>> patchfile(s)
>> original-source-tarball
> 
> Ouch!
> 
>> After installing a dozen of these, things can get pretty confusing.
> 
> I guess it would, but it's worse than that.  These aren't true source
> packages at all; they are wrapper packages, with the real source packed
> at an extra level of indirection within them.  IMO, such packages are
> malformed; they are certainly incompatible with my current concept of
> how "mingw-get source ..." should work.
> 
> I think we should move this discussion to MinGW-dvlpr.  My preference
> would be to bite the bullet, and repackage the source tarballs with a
> more appropriate structure.  I'm suspending this line of development
> until we can agree how we should move this forward.
> 

Moved to the developer list.

I've tended not to like Chuck's style of source deliver either.  I would
rather see the patched source be delivered in the -src file and if need
be the configure/build options given in the README file.  I've lived
with the delivery method because I know how to patch but I've found it
inconvenient.

-- 
Earnie
-- http://www.for-my-kids.com