new cygwin package: cgoban
Robert Collins
robert.collins@itdomain.com.au
Fri May 3 17:38:00 GMT 2002
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:04 AM
> Volker Zell agreed. Nobody else responded. I kinda like it, but FHS
> has moved away from that; now on Red Hat systems it appears that ONLY
> those programs specifically part of XFree86 are included there -- or
> programs whose purpose is to manipulate XFree86 itself (like
> third-party
> Xconfigurators and such).
I'm agnostic on this one, I don't use X enough to really care. However,
Earnie has pointed out that extra path elements have a lamentable
performance impact, so perhaps we should be avoiding that?
> Similarly, I don't like the restriction that all 'X'-based
> packages go
> under XFree86/ on sourceware. We don't put inetutils underneath
> ncurses/. We don't put openssh under openssl/.
I'm 100% with you here. If it's a package, then it goes under release.
If we want a completely separate tree, create a new location and a new
setup.ini, and then that becomes the cygwin-xfree lists domain, and they
can have whatever policy they want. Whilst it's in the main setup.ini,
they need to follow the policies that this list has hammered out - with
much pain.
> If you really want to segregate X apps, create another tree: Xopt/ or
> something (and give Harold "official" control of that tree, too). I
> think XFree86/ should be reserved for the XFree86 distribution itself.
Agreed.
> I'd like to see a definitive answer to both of these questions, tho,
> before we get too many X programs in the distribution...
> 1) --prefix=/usr/X11R6/
In short: I don't really care, but am not in favour of.
> 2) packages uploaded under XFree86/
Really don't like this.
Rob
More information about the Cygwin-apps
mailing list