Hi Jeremy,
On 4/24/2025 1:43 PM, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025, Mark Geisert via Cygwin-apps wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
On 4/24/2025 11:57 AM, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-apps wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2025, Mark Geisert via Cygwin wrote:
A new version 1.4.17-4 of the cygutils packages with a corrected
'cygstart' is now making its way to the mirrors.
Can I ask why patches are made in the packaging rather than applied to
the cygwin-apps/cygutils git repository, given that this package is
"local" to Cygwin and therefore has no other "upstream"? How would you
decide to make a 1.4.17-4 rather than a 1.4.18-1?
A fair question.
I think cygutils might have been the first package I ITA'd years ago. I
wasn't yet up to speed on the whole package management framework. I'm
(somewhat) better with the more recent adoptions I've made. As time permits
all the packages I manage will be done identically and involve the cygwin-apps
git repository, the CI process, etc.
I personally would probably go to 1.4.18-1 when some major packaging change
was made. I went from 1.4.16 to 1.4.17 when I took over from Chuck Wilson.
As for every maintainer here (and elsewhere), lack of time is an issue.
OK. It made trying to update the package in MSYS2 more of a pain
(https://github.com/msys2/MSYS2-packages/pull/5353). I went with
making your package revision into a 4th part of the version, so that
the MSYS2 package could maintain its own "pkgrel".
Apologies for the extra effort needed. I didn't foresee any issues with
how I chose to number released packages. At some point (sometime this
year) I'll switch to 3-part versions for cygutils.
You may be interested in the patch I just made to allow the package to
build against older runtimes (by skipping lssparse if SEEK_HOLE is not
defined).
[...]
Thanks very much! I've collected that and added it to the source tree
for the next build at some future time.
Regards,
..mark
