This is the mail archive of the 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: 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...


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