From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2013-03-01 21:55:05
|
On 27/02/13 21:29, Earnie Boyd wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> [...] >> So we now have: >> >> diff --git a/mingw32/mingw32-runtime.xml b/mingw32/mingw32-runtime.xml >> index 59a92d3..cfb2b11 100644 >> --- a/mingw32/mingw32-runtime.xml >> +++ b/mingw32/mingw32-runtime.xml >> @@ -72,6 +72,63 @@ >> </component> >> </package> >> >> + <package name="mingw32-mingwrt-4-0-rc1" alias="mingwrt-4-0-rc1"> Aside from this introducing the impression of mingw32 as default host, there may be package naming issues here; see below. >> + [...] >> + >> + <source tarname="mingwrt-4.0-1-mingw32-rc-1-src.tar.lzma" /> >> + <license tarname="mingwrt-4.0-1-mingw32-rc-1-lic.tar.lzma" /> >> + >> + <component class="dev"> >> + <release tarname="mingwrt-4.0-1-mingw32-rc-1-dev.tar.lzma" /> >> + </component> >> + >> + [...] >> + </package> >> + >> + <package name="mingw32-w32api-4-0-rc1" alias="w32api-4-0-rc1"> >> + [...] >> + >> + <source tarname="w32api-4.0-1-mingw32-rc-1-src.tar.lzma" /> >> + <licence tarname="w32api-4.0-1-mingw32-rc-1-lic.tar.lzma" /> >> + >> + <component class="dev"> >> + <release tarname="w32api-4.0-1-mingw32-rc-1-dev.tar.lzma" /> >> + </component> >> + >> + [...] >> + </package> >> + >> </package-collection> >> [...] >> >> Is this acceptable? > > I gave this a test on my local system but I had to do both an upgrade > and an install because of the new component classes. I'm surprised it worked at all; "mingw32-mingwrt-4-0-rc1" isn't a valid package name. If you substitute it into the logical representation of its associated tarname, as agreed in previous discussion, (in which the main participants were Chuck and myself, but to which you were also an invited party), you get mingwrt-4-0-rc1-4.0-mingw32-rc-1-dev.tar.lzma Run that through pkginfo, and you'll see the problem. Ditto, in the case of mingw32-w32api-4-0-rc1. I understand what you are trying to do, but in addition to this package naming anomaly, there is a more serious problem: you are breaking the rule of package orthogonality; (no individual file should be delivered by more than one package). In introducing this pair of packages, you are creating conflicts with the existing mingwrt and w32api packages; I'm afraid that current mingw-get just isn't equipped to handle any such scenario. -- Regards, Keith. |