This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygwin-pkg-maint maintance
- From: Marco Atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 22:28:09 +0200
- Subject: Re: cygwin-pkg-maint maintance
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53E7D70A dot 7010001 at gmail dot com> <53E84CBD dot 3070407 at cygwin dot com> <87a977arcm dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <1408040236 dot 5814 dot 25 dot camel at yselkowitz dot redhat dot com> <87oavmancn dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid>
On 14/08/2014 21:21, Achim Gratz wrote:
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
This is a package ownership database, not a package information
database. What additional information do you think would be useful
Whether the package is available for both architectures
It is in both architectures if it appears in both setup.ini;
any other solution will create duplicated information that finally
need alignment and it is error prone.
I plan to produce a list of sources by arch as by product of
the current analysis.
Please note that the two trees are not exactly equal so there are
packages available only in 64 and not in 32bit
(biber is the first in alphabetical order)
and if it's
already converted to cygport for instance. From that database the
current file can easily be created if necessary and any manual changes
to the file could bootstrap a new entry in the database (so the new
maintainer can upload).
The build methods is maintainer choice.
I use cygport but I don't see a reason to mandate it.
I do not follow the rest of your statement,
could you clarify the expected outcome ?