This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygport limitations
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:13:49 +0200
- Subject: Re: cygport limitations
- References: <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> <51C495E1 dot 9040901 at etr-usa dot com> <51C4970D dot 9090103 at etr-usa dot com> <51C4A08E dot 1020907 at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Jun 21 13:50, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 13:10, Warren Young wrote:
> >On 6/21/2013 12:05, Warren Young wrote:
> >>With cygport, you wouldn't even need to provide sources. We could email
> >>in the new cygport file instead of an RFU.
> >...and patches.
> >...and customized .hint files, if needed.
> >Yeah, I guess sending the .src.tar.bz2 probably is effectively required.
> No, it's not. IIUC, the eventual goal should be something that
> looks like Ports git:
> together with a buildbot. Package maintainers would then commit
> their changes to a package's repo, which would then trigger a
> post-commit hook that would cause the package to be built with those
Yes, that sounds good. The last discussions in my dept about setting up
a build system are long gone, so we have to start anew. This will take
some time (think unsavory things like budgets and so on...), but I'll
keep on it.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple