This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)
* Fri 2003-07-11 Charles Wilson <email@example.com> list.cygwin-apps
* Message-Id: <3F0F508A.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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?
Oh, I don't mind if someone takes over maintaining the packages.
It will be less burden to me with all my other projects.
The only motivation why I used hours to make cygbuild, was that,
If I ever intentended to build something to cygwin, I surely wanted the
maintenence to be as easy as possibly.
I believe I have achieved that with cygbuild. But of course, it's just
me. I cannot speak for others how they amintain their ports. I guess
anything that "makes life easier" is worth it, eh?
> Viva libre!
> 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.
I'll be here as if I found more software to port, I'll sure hit my ey
on it, being a regular Linux Magazine reader :-)
Swatch @time http://www.ryanthiessen.com/swatch/resources.htm
Convert @time http://www.mir.com.my/iTime/itime.htm