This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Fixing packages which rely on obsolete packages
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:00:23 +0200
- Subject: Re: Fixing packages which rely on obsolete packages
- References: <20130622204921 dot GA2803 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <51C6A5D6 dot 3080503 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <20130623150937 dot GA4089 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Jun 23 11:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 02:37:58AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >On 2013-06-22 15:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>I'm refreshing the procedure for updating setup.ini on sourceware
> >As part of this, I would like to suggest again that a noarch directory
> >be added alongside x86 and x86_64, and its files be included in each
> >arch's setup.ini. There are a LOT of noarch packages in the distro,
> >and it would save both disk space on sourceware and the mirrors, as
> >well as bandwidth for all (including users), with a noarch directory.
> >Of course, I am willing to help identify candidates for noarch, as well
> >as consider changes to cygport to simplify this.
> Sorry, I've already mentioned that I don't think that a separarte noarch
> directory is a good idea. My opinion has not changed.
I still don't understand why that opinion is as it is. The separation
between $arch/noarch packages makes a lot of sense, enough sense that
all Linux distros are using it in their packaging. Yaakov's reasons
are all good ones.
Do we have a technical limitation which disallows to make this clean
separation? If not, I don't see why we shouldn't do it.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com