Re: Will the real libiconv please stand up! Was : Re: [Mingw-users] baby steps, an half-finshed packaging of libiconv (very boring)

[Bruno Haible <bruno clisp org>]

James Michael DuPont writes:

> First of all I am talking about a mingw32 under debian, and second of
> all, please excuse that I overlooked your particular port, because
> there is no clear guidelines for the user as to which of the MANY ports
> he should use. 

* If you want to build from source, start out at the package's
  homepage, as listed on freshmeat.net.

* If you want cygwin binaries, go to http://www.cygwin.com/ and
  http://www.cygwin.com/download.html

* If you want mingw32 binaries, go to http://mingwrep.sourceforge.net/

* If you want pw32 binaries, go to http://pw32.sourceforge.net/

I think the confusion would be less if the
http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/ page would state clearly which
environment/compiler they use: mingw32 or pw32 or cygwin or msvc.

Your platform ("mingw32 under debian") appears to be new. With each
new platform or set of packaging rules you start from scratch.


> lets look for iconv :
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/libiconv/  -- This is from Haible

This is the CVS repository for libiconv.

> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/libiconv  -- Oh another one!

This is the CVS repository for libiconv's homepage.

> http://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/      -- The GNU Package

This is libiconv's homepage.

Earnie Boyd writes:
> The real libiconv would be the one who owns it, the FSF.  One of the
> problems with these smaller packages is the lack of CVS support.  If
> the official maintainer used CVS then a branch could be set and all
> of the above porters would have contributed to the same port.

All wrong. libiconv is maintained in a CVS, and the lack of CVS
branches for cygwin/mingw32/etc. is because:

  - It compiles out of the box on cygwin,
  - It compiles out of the box for mingw32, except for a one-liner
    patch,
  - It compiles out of the box for msvc, using the included
    Makefile.msvc.

James Michael DuPont writes:
> I found out that FSF does not own the libiconv

Wrong. The FSF does own libiconv. Look at the copyright notices.

> Bruno Haible has THREE! different CVS controls of the sources, 
> two on sourceforge (libiconv,clisp), one on savannah. And none on the
> GNU CVS.

Wrong again. Take a look at the contents of these CVS repositories.
Only one of them contains the maintained sources of libiconv.

Bruno