Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)
Charles Wilson
cygwin@cwilson.fastmail.fm
Sat Jul 12 00:06:00 GMT 2003
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>>
>> Right. Sorry. Just the using cygbuild (as apposed to gbs) is allowed.
>
>
> While technically this is true, I really can't see the difference
> between the two. For simplicity's sake, using a common script for
> method II would be most helpful. I'm willing to do the conversion for
> gc & cabextract.
Nicholas, you're not maintaining cabextract or gc; Jari is. What
matters is what tool the actual maintainer wants to use.
If you "convert" gc to build using gbs, how happy do you think Jari will
be to be forced to use what he considers an inferior tool? How
motivated will Jari be to keep the packages up-to-date?
Viva libre!
We mandate the layout of binary packages. We mandate that you must be
able to build the package on cygwin using freely available tools. We
mandate that official packages may only depend -- at runtime, not
buildtime -- on other official packages (cygipc/postgresql
notwithstanding). That's it.
I welcome improvements to gbs. But lets not march down the no-freedom
road; let Jari be Jari.
--
Chuck
More information about the Cygwin-apps
mailing list