On Aug 4 13:28, Eric Blake wrote: > 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>
Sounds good! Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpFUVa1QHdbG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
