This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygport limitations (was: Adding MSYS functionality to Cygwin)
- From: Andrew Schulman <schulman dot andrew at epa dot gov>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:03:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: cygport limitations (was: Adding MSYS functionality to Cygwin)
- References: <51C0B08E dot 8080900 at etr-usa dot com> <CABEPuQJJpRfPKSwZ7M0eTOdp1HxDcmvuy1=qXFHBw-8kLkZ1ZQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51C0D956 dot 4090905 at etr-usa dot com> <51C1B299 dot 1000701 at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm> <51C1F0F9 dot 70601 at etr-usa dot com> <51C1FA8E dot 3000307 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <51C33F38 dot 4080103 at etr-usa dot com> <20130620181056 dot GA16923 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <74f7s89jvij7188akllq0l4qpp0i2ju35q at 4ax dot com> <20130621074934 dot GF1620 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20130621143411 dot GA5918 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:49:34AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jun 20 22:38, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> >> > If every maintainer would use cygport, it would allow us to change
> >> > the build method to one along the lines of most Linux distros.
> >> > In Linux distros, the maintainer provides only the spec file and
> >> > the source archive. The actual build for all supported platforms
> >> > could be done on a machine which creates the distro from there.
> >> That would be cool. Let's do it!
> >Uhm, that was a projection into the ideal future. No provisions have
> >been made yet. We need to set up a central repository like Yaakov's
> >cygwinports git repo and a central build mechanism. The first we can
> >probably shamelessly copy from Yaakov and set up over the next few
> >months, the second needs a bit of hacking.
> I'm not sure if this reminder is needed but, I'm not switching to
> cygport and I believe there are also a couple of other people using
> non-cygport packagers as well.
I guess there will always be some maintainers who don't want to use
cygport, but I don't think that should be a reason to keep all of the rest
of us from moving from the current labor-intensive manual build process, to
a more labor-efficient automated process.
This vision seems like the future to me. More people will maintain more
packages if they can spend less of their time babysitting manual build and
upload processes. The distro maintainers should ultimately see a decrease
in their labor too.
For packages that don't work well with cygport, maybe it would be
worthwhile to still support the current manual upload method. The number
of those packages would apparently be small. But if a maintainer just
doesn't want to use cygport, then I think we should ask whether the project
should spend its resources accomodating that preference.
I understand that the project doesn't seem ready to take on this task yet,
but when there's a need for development or system administration effort to
make that vision happen, I'd like to help.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple