new package proposal : CLISP

Sam Steingold
Mon Sep 15 20:45:00 GMT 2003

>* Lapo Luchini <> [2003-09-15 21:54:41 +0200]:
> Sam Steingold wrote:
> >Now, cygwin maintainers (like RedHat maintaners, Debian maintaners &c
> >&c) want all packages to look the same _to them_.  This is quite
> >reasonable, but it puts a certain strain on me: I have to learn all sort
> >of new stuff (setup.hint format, CYGWIN-PATCHES, *.spec, debian &c &c).
> >
> >This is why I want someone who already maintains a cygwin package and
> >who is comfortable with all these requirements to maintain the CLISP
> >cygwin package.
> >
> >I am lucky that CLISP already has a debian maintainer.
> >Now I want a cygwin maintainer too.
> If your *only* concern is in learning how to mantain a cygwin package
> (as simple as it seems to be to me now, it seemed not at the beginning)
> I guess I can propose myself to "proxy-package" it.

> But it would seems like "cheating" to me: the "burden" of a
> cygwin-specific package is having a cygwin-specific README installed
> in the correct directory (/usr/share/doc/Cygwin) and having the
> binaries installed in the correct directory (/usr/bin).  setup.hint is
> a "fake" problem, as once created, is almost never changed.

CLISP build process creates both setup.hint and cygwin README, so the
binary package is created OOTB.

> The *big* part of being a mantainer is, IMHO, trying to solve
> cygwin-specific problems...

CLISP is not likely to have cygwin-specific problems.
That said, it would indeed be nice if someone were doing that.
Right now, it all lands on my plate anyway, so whatever you can take
from it (e.g., making src package) - please have it!

Sam Steingold ( running w2k
<> <> <>
<> <>
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list