This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] setup: port to 64-bit, part 2

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:35:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 17 02:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> If we're going to do that then I'd like the actual maintainers to start
>> generating packages rather than random other people.  Otherwise chaos
>> will ensue.
>I didn't know Yaakov is a random person.

I'll attempt to not follow your lead and respond to this
matter-of-factly rather than hyperbolically:

In cygwin-apps, we have Marco and Yaakov discussiong cmake packages.
Neither of them is the cmake maintainer.  The cmake maintainer isn't
even weighing in, AFAICT.

In cygwin-developers, we have people discussing dash and perl who are
not the maintainers.  There are versions of these programs available
but I don't think the maintainers have had feedback into the packages.
There is also a 64-bit version of binutils, using a different versioning
scheme (a new trend), uploaded by someone who is not the binutils

If we're thinking about making something that looks like a release then
I'd like to do the considerate thing and make sure that the people whose
packages you are releasing are ok with what's being done.  I, for
example, am not ok with making a version of binutils available which
uses a different versioning scheme.  I don't want to have to worry about
that in a future setup.hint file.

Downloading and extracting tarballs is, IMO, different than making
setup.hint'ed packages available and establishing a new release.  If we
make a release I think it should be a beta version of an actual 64-bit
release rather than something that has to be wiped out and restarted
when 64-bit goes live.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]