On Mar 14 12:08, marco atzeri wrote: > On 3/14/2013 11:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Mar 14 04:54, Yaakov wrote: > >>On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:41:47 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>>On Mar 13 21:01, Yaakov wrote: > > >>>- For uploading packages it's important to know where the new package > >>> has to go. Therefore, IMHO, it would make sense to change to a new > >>> package naming scheme, preferedly compatible with the versioning > >>> mechanism in upset, supported by cygport and easily recognizable by > >>> uploaders or upload scripts. > >>> > >>> Linux distros typically use the architecture after the version number: > >>> > >>> package-foo-1.2.3-4.i686.tar.bz2 > >>> package-bar-5-6-7.noarch.tar.bz2 > > we are, almost, already using this scheme for src packages, > so it will be more consistent and clear (IMHO)
Your mail reminds me... what about the src packages? In theory they are only required once, regardless of the number of supported architectures. Shouldn't this also lead to using a separate src dir? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
