This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Right. Sorry. Just the using cygbuild (as apposed to gbs) is allowed.
While technically this is true, I really can't see the difference
between the two. For simplicity's sake, using a common script for
method II would be most helpful. I'm willing to do the conversion for
gc & cabextract.
Nicholas, you're not maintaining cabextract or gc; Jari is. What
matters is what tool the actual maintainer wants to use.
If you "convert" gc to build using gbs, how happy do you think Jari will
be to be forced to use what he considers an inferior tool? How
motivated will Jari be to keep the packages up-to-date?
We mandate the layout of binary packages. We mandate that you must be
able to build the package on cygwin using freely available tools. We
mandate that official packages may only depend -- at runtime, not
buildtime -- on other official packages (cygipc/postgresql
notwithstanding). That's it.
I welcome improvements to gbs. But lets not march down the no-freedom
road; let Jari be Jari.