This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: ITP: Guile 1.5.6
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at syncretize dot net>
- To: "'Jan Nieuwenhuizen'" <janneke at gnu dot org>,"'Charles Wilson'" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Cc: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:17:13 +1000
- Subject: RE: ITP: Guile 1.5.6
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com
> [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Jan Nieuwenhuizen
> Sent: Friday, 5 July 2002 3:10 AM
> > Well, the setup.hints for guile-doc, libguile14, and libguile14-dev
> > packages should all include an 'external-source: guide' line.
>
> Ah, ok, will do. I imagined upset would handle that kind of thing.
That's how upset handles it :}. The current pre-release setup has
support for completely separate source packages (as per apt or rpm's
approach), but no syntax in the setup.ini to declare those packages yet.
Once everything else in setup is of high enough quality to support that
properly, then we can discuss here the best way to tell setup of the
source package details.
> > To me, it sure looks like the latter is true:
>
> Yes, most probably. That's what Debian does, and
> cygwin.com/setup.html advises to look over there. In Debian, it's
> called libguile-dev. That combined with the example of
> libnetpmb10-dev[el] (ahum), led me to choose libguileX-dev.
>
> Hmm, I'd say maybe libguile-dev, but I don't care too much? Anyone
> else feels like arguing?
I think it's your call.... However in dpkg, the apt system allows one
package to upgrade another, so libguile14-devel can be 'replaced' by
libguile15-devel. We don't have that functionality yet, so you need to
name the package libguile-devel if it be a single upgrade path for the
development stuff.
Rob