On 08/04/2014 03:14 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I'm fine with the changes, barring Yaakov's nits.
I fixed those. > > However, while we're at it shouldn't we change from "cygport is the > accepted way to make Cygwin packages" to "cygport is the required way to > make new Cygwin packages and the (strongly) recommended way for package > updates"? I for one think it's time to switch to a single packaging > method. After all, you don't have rpm packages in Debian or apt > packages in Fedora. This will also greatly simplify to set up an > automated build system for Cygwin packages at one point. Agreed; so here's what I added in before pushing my patch: @@ -283,9 +288,12 @@ etc... <li>Ensure that your package handles being installed on binary and text mounts correctly. </li> </ul> -<p>While you could make a package satisfying these requirements by hand, the -accepted way to make Cygwin packages is using the cygport tool, which -automatically handles most of the above issues for you.</p> +<p>While older packages exist which satisfy these requirements by hand, the +only accepted way to make a new Cygwin package is using the cygport tool, which +automatically handles most of the above issues for you. It is also +strongly recommended to convert existing packages to cygport when +updating them; ask on the <tt>cygwin-apps</tt> list if you need help +converting an existing package to use cygport.</p> <h2><a id="making_srcpackage" name="making_srcpackage">Making a package with cygport</a></h2> -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
