Anomalies in Source Distributions

Wed Apr 28 01:11:00 GMT 2004

At 04:03 PM 4/27/2004, you wrote:
>Op 2004年4月22日 13:46:57 -0400
>schreef Larry Hall <cygwin-lh te cygwin.com>
>in <6.1.0.6.0.20040422133723.038e2548@127.0.0.1>:
>: At 01:08 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
> ^^^
>"Philip Brown" <pbrown00 uit earthlink.net>, not me.
>>[...]
>: > sharutils-4.2.1-3 - Similar to above for file:
>: > /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/sharutils.README
>: > which should be sharutils-4.2.1-3.README per your configuration system to
>: > the best of my understanding.
>:>:>: No. The prescribed approach from <http://cygwin.com/setup.html> is:
>:>: In your binary package, include a file /usr/share/doc/Cygwin/foo-vendor- 
>: suffix.README containing (at a minimum) the information needed for an end 
>: user to recreate the package. This includes CFLAGS settings, configure 
>: parameters, etc. 
>:>: This doesn't say any package version number is a requirement. There are 
>: benefits to leaving the number off (i.e. the same file applies to any 
>: version).
>>Then, what is meant by ``-vendor-suffix'' in the above quotation?

That would be the "4.2.1" for the sharutils example above. It's the upstream
version numbers, not the Cygwin-specific release number.
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746 
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/