coreutils packaging question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

coreutils packaging question

Eric Blake (cygwin)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Now that cygwin-1.5.20 is out, I would like to release coreutils-5.97-1 as
the latest stable upstream release.  However, it depends on autoconf 2.60,
and requires autoreconf to fold in my cygwin-specific patches.  Should I
wait for the cygwin package of autoconf 2.60, so that coreutils can be
rebuilt with a self-contained stock cygwin install?  Or should I just go
ahead and release coreutils now with a big caveat in the readme file that
the user must manually install their own autoconf 2.60 to reproduce my build?

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             [hidden email]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEqxUT84KuGfSFAYARAp0UAJ0ZnpsZWgId5HdjdP51XVU+D3HimgCdG1jj
wyQvss79D3GOtc381HLYvsY=
=M/AA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: coreutils packaging question

Christopher Faylor-2
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 07:25:39PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>Now that cygwin-1.5.20 is out, I would like to release coreutils-5.97-1
>as the latest stable upstream release.  However, it depends on autoconf
>2.60, and requires autoreconf to fold in my cygwin-specific patches.
>Should I wait for the cygwin package of autoconf 2.60, so that
>coreutils can be rebuilt with a self-contained stock cygwin install?
>Or should I just go ahead and release coreutils now with a big caveat
>in the readme file that the user must manually install their own
>autoconf 2.60 to reproduce my build?

IMO, the latter.  If people really want to build from source then they should
be able to follow instructions.

cgf