This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Packaging tools [Was Re: ITP: Guile 1.5.6]
On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 06:07:53PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 04:13:10PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>I'm pretty happy with the mknetrel functionality. It allows me to build
>>most packages without actually modifying anything. If people want to
>>try it, I'll entertain modifications, i.e., I'll consider it supported.
>Glad to hear it. Is this a change?
Possibly. I don't remember if I was saying that I wouldn't support it
before but so far the change requests have been reasonable and there
hasn't been anyone whining about how hard it is to figure out, so...
>(And I hope you weren't being "pushed" by me. I was actually trying to
>hint that someone else should 'support' it instead; you've certainly
>got enough on your plate with just cygwin, gcc, and binutils alone, not
>to mention the other 30 packages)
I didn't feel pushed. I just thought that if I could help the package
build problem by helping to support mknetrel, I would.
>As far as a "standard" tool for packaging, the "right" answer may be
>"leave well enough alone for now". It's not *really* that important
>that every cygwin package be 'packaged' the same way -- you (and perhaps
>others) use mknetrel; Jan uses cross-tools; I use method 2; Corinna does
>some other magic...big deal.
No! My way is the best! All other will be crushed!
>But a well documented tool that is both native and cross compatible,
>like mknetrel, would be nice...
Now there's a place where a volunteer would be nice. Documentation...