Re: patches to vendor source trees - discussion

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

Robert Collins wrote:
> It's got what I was meaning in all those discussion. If you could put it
> up for comparison with your 1st and 2nd style tarballs that'd be great.

Okay, it's up there.

But it isn't a FULL example.  You didn't modify the
CYGWIN-PATCHES/mktemp.README file to reflect *your* building style.  You
didn't change CYGWIN-PATCHES/mktemp-1.3.1-1.sh to reflect the way *you*
think the build procedure should work.  Both files still refer to things
like /usr/doc/cygwin/SOURCES and /usr/doc/cygwin/BUILD etc.

You merely changed the name of the internal tarball slightly.

I want to see a REAL, FULL example of your idea, as integrated with
setup's *current* capabilities.  I *thought* that my -style2 did that. 
You left my -style2 shell script as is, but changed just enough in the
package structure so that the script doesn't work.  You changed a little
of the README but it still isn't a completely accurate representation of
*your* structure.

Also, if the -src tarball is going to contain mktemp-1.3.1-1.patch, then
the src tarball should be named mktemp-1.3.1-1-src.tar.bz2, NOT
mktemp-1.3.1-src.tar.bz2.  Otherwise, how will you differentiate it from
the -src tarball that contains mktemp-1.3.1-2.patch?

--Chuck