This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
- To: 'Robert Collins' <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Subject: RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
- From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:09:46 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:01 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
> Ok... I slept through most of this thread :}. I'm going to
> make a couple
> of comments though... to no particular poster/answer.
> On 27 Aug 2001 13:39:17 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:39:46AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> > >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On our
> > >> >SourceForge downloads page we distribute a source
> tarball, a few binary
> > >> >RPMs, and a Cygwin binary package.
> Bernard, I'm not sure how the above underlined comment, when combined
> > >> And a cygwin source package, hopefully, if you want to
> be in compliance
> > >> with the GPL.
> > >
> > >Not so. Section 3c of the GPL exempts noncommercial
> distributors from
> > >having to carry the source. They can simply point you to
> where they
> > >downloaded the code themselves.
> the above underlined paragraph; can be interpreted in any
> other fashion
> than John is intentionally distributing a cygwin1.dll package, in the
> belief that it is GPL blessed.
It would be if the second statement was due to John...
> If John had responded with "But it's *our* software in there in binary
> form, not cygwin1.dll; I meant a binary package of out
> software compiled
> for use on cygwin" then it would all be different!
I was thinking that the initial post from John should have been read like
this (after all nobody ask if the "rpm" contains the libc.so), but of course
> So all comments in the thread that disagree with this should
> be referred
> to John for clarification. IMO Chris and Chuck are correct.
Let me be clear: I *never* disagree with how Chris and Chuck interpret the
GPL; I was just saying that, as I read it, the original post from John seems
to imply that, most probably, it's "cygwin binary package" was *not*
including cygwin1.dll, so was OK with our *common* interpretation of the GPL
But of course I would have like (and in fact expected) to have John's
reaction on this.
> OTOH there is a meme floating around somewhere that 3(c) is a
> get-out-of-jail-free card - which it's not. This is a bad meme, that
> should be squashed vigourously.
Oh Yes; I agree with that. I just disagree on the "anybody is playing
incorrectly with the GPL" syndrom one can feel when reading some messages.
> > >You shouldn't give John a hard time; the PRC-Tools project
> is a free
> > >software project in much the same spirit as Cygwin. In
> fact, the two
> > >projects are very similar: a GCC port to a non-Unix
> platform, for making
> > >binaries native to that platform.
> I don't think Chris gave John a hard time. 'nuff said
> elsehwere anyway.
> > >Now, if John were still working for Palm and posting from
> a palm.com
> > >address, you'd be justified in being picky about the GPL.
> But he's not,
> > >and you shouldn't.
> I'm surprised this one wasn't picked up on!. If Chris doesn't enforce
> the GPL on the open/free source community, how can he expect
> closed-source developers to respect it - especially given it
> hasn't been
> tested in court.
In fact I think who's giving John's its paycheck has no importance here;
he's producing and using open/free source code, so must obey the rules. The
only thing I say is that he must not be suspected of not obeying them, as
producing free source should deserve checking before complaining.
> > >> I've got mixed feelings about putting concessions for
> > >> other packages in setup. It isn't really supposed to be
> a general purpose
> > >> installation tool.
> > >
> > >Keep in mind, this isn't a case of using setup.exe to install a
> > >standalone package. PRC-Tools on Windows is always used
> inside a Cygwin
> > >environment. John is just trying to make it simpler to
> make a PRC-Tools
> > >distribution tarball that Cygwin's own installation tools
> will accept
> > >and install.
> It doesn't matter what the "other use of setup is" - setup.exe has
> enough trouble just installing accurately, on the thousands of users
> machines that use it. Adding special case considerations does
> _not_ make
> sense, and I'd be one of the first folk to provide a patch to remove
> any such considerations from it. We are already trying to
> find a way to
> remove the -src special consideration. The proposed patch was a
> significant step backwards. (BTW: I contributed some-large% of the new
> dependency and category handling code - so I suspect I know whereof I
OK, no problem; as I already say I just expected discussion on why the
proposed solution was or was not appropriate, but in th initial part of the
thread does not find any clear explanation about why it isn't and what
changes scheduled in setup may render it obsolete.
Not knowing what is scheduled is obscuring th edebate; knowing for example
that there will be a change to the -src special handling (meaning some more
general solution will be provided) makes perfect sense at refusing the
-cygwin special handling, but was far from evident from the initial
> > It apparently isn't clear to you that "Cygwin's own
> installation tools"
> > were meant to install, um, the cygwin packages from the
> cygwin web site
> > and mirrors. They don't have accomodations for using other
> web sites or
> > being bundled as part of a larger package. That is what I
> was saying
> > above.
> IMO, adding features that don't carry much maintenance overhead is OK,
> but there certainly won't be any cygwin developer driving
> such features
> _unless_ they are also going to benefit from them. In this case the
> "feature" was a problem. In others they have been added, with only
> trivial discussion (even when cygwin doesn't really need them).
OK, I can understand that, but the problem was not explained, just the fact
that the feature was getting in the "mixed feelings" category which need
further advice from developers.
PS: Note that in the above message, only the every first quote was from me,
while you seem to say that you were answering to my post...
97 bis, rue de Colombes
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html