ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/02/03:21:39

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3BE2578B.1050001@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 03:21:31 -0500
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
CC: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: setup testers wanted
References: <1004664322 DOT 5225 DOT 19 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20011102031557 DOT 74466 DOT qmail AT web20009 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <20011101224427 DOT B7348 AT redhat DOT com> <3BE250D7 DOT 5050501 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <1004689036 DOT 6940 DOT 7 DOT camel AT lifelesswks>

Robert Collins wrote:

> On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 18:52, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> 
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
> 
>>stuff "properly").  Translating that into a setup-compatible tarball 
>>will take some work; IMO it'd be better to have a (mostly) stable 
>>setup.exe *before* asking the cygwin-xfree folks to embark on that task.
>>
> 
> Oh, the other point: There's no need for the tarballs to change if they
> current extract into the correct location. (/ IIRC)


Well, the *names* need to change.  Currently, they are named cryptically 
like "Xbin.tgz" and "Xf100.tgz" and "Xetc.tgz".  No version numbers -- 
and the source package is monolithic, even though there are many 
"binary" packages.  It'll probably be necessary to have "fake" src 
packages (see libncurses5-X.Y-Z-src.tar.bz2) for most of these, and then 
just one "real" src package.

Also, it is unclear whether the current division into these specific 
separate binary tarballs is the appropriate division for official 
setup.exe-style packages -- although keeping the current divisions would 
be the easiest thing to do.

My point: work is needed, and decisions must be made.  And that ought to 
wait until after the new setup is unleashed and stabilized -- but that's 
what you said in the other message, anyway.  So we agree.

--Chuck

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019