Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] Re: [ATT] Packaging: RFC

[Paul G. <pga...@te...>]

On 8 Nov 2000, at 13:38, the Illustrious Earnie Boyd wrote:

> --- Paul Sokolovsky <pa...@is...> 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 1.1.1.1
> version.
> 
> 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".
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Tally:
> 
> 1 for Original (pristine) source with diff


> 1 for Modified source with no diff
 +1
-----
   2 for Modified source with no diff

	Peace,

		Paul G.

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.