From: Paul Garceau <pgarceau@te...> - 2000-11-09 00:43:38
On 8 Nov 2000, at 13:38, the Illustrious Earnie Boyd wrote:
> --- Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml@...> wrote:
> I'll break my response into pieces.
> > EB> IMO you should have a binary distribution and a source
> > distribution. For EB> ports, the source as modified should be
> > distributed with a differences file so EB> that modifications
> > can be reviewed and reverted if necessary.
> > IMHO, there should be pristine sources and diff.
> If one wants pristine sources they can simply apply a reverse
> patch. Very few will want to do this. Why complicate the
> process of many to provide a benefit to a few? I'm not even sure
> that the patch file should be provided at all, becomes old after
> multiple patches applied, useless to those without patch binaries
> except for historical or documentational purposes. If we do
> supply patch files then we probably should use CVS to control the
> differences and always supply the diff file from the 220.127.116.11
> But, if we use CVS then we also have to sync up with a newly
> released version and that in itself can be nightmareish. Let's
> put it up for a vote on this list. The question is concerning
> source distribution and whether it should contain the original
> (pristine) source with a diff file for patching it to build with
> MinGW or whether it should contain the modified source with no
> diff file ready to build with MinGW?
> Choose one:
> [ ] Original (pristine) source with diff
> [ ] Modified source with no diff
I choose the latter "Modified source with no diff".
> 1 for Original (pristine) source with diff
> 1 for Modified source with no diff
2 for Modified source with no diff
ps. Why not put a survey up on the mingw developers page for
developers (those subscribed to this list) only?
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.