On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Charles Wilson <cwilso11@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
I'm gearing up to refresh some of the packages I've created in the past
for mingw and msys, especially the autotools.

Now, the autotools come in two different flavors:
 1) intended for use within an MSys environment for
maintaining/building "native" mingw packages, and
 2) intended for use within an MSysDvlpr environment for
maintaining/building other MSYS packages.

Based on previous discussions on this list, I propose that the autotools
in category #1 follow this naming convention:

autoconf-6-1-mingw32-bin.tar.lzma  (wrapper)

These would be configured with prefix=/mingw, and would be packaged from
within /mingw so that they contain:


Seems reasonable.
I'm also open to (a) possibly splitting the documentation out into a
-doc pkg for each,

Seems a good idea.
and/or (b) using -dev in preference to -bin for the
package that contains the actual scripts.

I would prefer to reserve -dev to packages providing headers files and libraries. I would include scripts only if they are used to get the build flags (e.g. "foo-config").
 However, this becomes tricky
with regards to gettext.  There's
 (a) the package that contains the DLLs (-dll-N, obviously)
     -- perhaps multiple, to track different libraries with different
        evolving API numbers. e.g libintl vs. libasprintf.
 (b) the package that contains the gettext utility programs
 (c) the package that contains the import libs, static libs, and header
 (d) the package that contains the documentation for the utilities
 (e) the package that contains the API documentation for the libraries
 (f) the package that contains the GIANT set of examples
I lean towards -bin for (b), -dev for (c), and combining all of (d-f) as

Seems right.
 BUT, if the gettext *utilities* are in -bin, then why shouldn't
the autoconf *utilities* ALSO be in a -bin package?  That's my reasoning
for using -bin, in the examples above.