From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2008-01-10 22:38:12
|
Hello All, I'm currently gearing up for a release of a native build of a catgets package, (a prerequisite for creating an internationalised man). I plan to provide three packages:-- 1) mingw-catgets-1.0-src.tar.gz -- the complete source code. 2) mingw-catgets-1.0-dev.tar.gz -- a precompiled development kit; it will comprise the headers, static libs and import libs, manpages and tools (executables) needed for creating i18n applications, based on a POSIX standard `catgets' implementation, and the message catalogues required to support them. 3) mingw-catgets-1.0-bin.tar.gz -- a precompiled DLL version of the catgets library. Those three packages are named as I've set up my Makefile to create them, and consistently with the naming convention adopted for the `regex' library originally contributed by Tor Lillqvist; however, it *isn't* consistent with the convention Chuck has adopted for some of his packages in the MSYS Supplementary Tools set, (e.g. libiconv). If I were to adopt Chuck's convention, then I should probably make my three packages:-- 1) mingw-catgets-1.0-src.tar.gz 2) mingw-catgets-1.0-bin.tar.gz 3) mingw-catgets-1.0-dll.tar.gz or possibly:-- 1) mingw-catgets-1.0-src.tar.gz 2) mingw-catgets-1.0-dev.tar.gz 3) mingw-catgets-1.0-dll.tar.gz Does anyone have any strong preference for any one of these conventions, or shall I just go ahead with the first, as I have it at present? It is trivial for me to change it, but if I'm going to do so, I want to do it before I cut the release. Regards, Keith. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2008-01-10 23:54:08
|
Quoting Keith Marshall <kei...@us...>: > > Does anyone have any strong preference for any one of these conventions, > or shall I just go ahead with the first, as I have it at present? It is > trivial for me to change it, but if I'm going to do so, I want to do it > before I cut the release. > Not really. I think what you have already is sufficient. Earnie |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2008-01-11 06:26:09
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > Quoting Keith Marshall <kei...@us...>: > >> Does anyone have any strong preference for any one of these conventions, >> or shall I just go ahead with the first, as I have it at present? It is >> trivial for me to change it, but if I'm going to do so, I want to do it >> before I cut the release. >> > > Not really. I think what you have already is sufficient. Yeah, it's fine. I was following the gnuwin32 convention, because the cygwin convention didn't seem quite right to me, at the time. Them as does, gets to say how they does it. -- Chuck |
From: Michael G. <mg...@ti...> - 2008-01-11 08:07:05
|
> Does anyone have any strong preference for any one of these conventions, I don't have strong preferences either way but coming from linux I do prefer '-dev' over '-bin'. Best, Michael =2D-=20 Michael Gerdau email: mg...@ti... GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver |
From: techtonik <tec...@us...> - 2008-01-11 11:36:32
|
src,dev,bin is logically obvious. On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Michael Gerdau <mg...@ti...> wrote: > > Does anyone have any strong preference for any one of these conventions, > > I don't have strong preferences either way but coming from linux I do > prefer '-dev' over '-bin'. > > Best, > Michael > -- > Michael Gerdau email: mg...@ti... > GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services for > just about anything Open Source. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-dvlpr mailing list > Min...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr > > -- --anatoly t. |