Linux distro qualification clarification

Christopher Faylor
Thu Nov 3 19:21:00 GMT 2005

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:09:38PM -0600, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
>Hash: SHA1
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> No problems with the packaging (except that the ldesc lines in setup.hint
>> are too long, IMHO.  However, I don't see that gnubg is packed with any
>> Linux distro according to rpmfind, so we need the usual three votes here.

Btw, as long as we're talking about this, I think we need to clarify the
rules a little.  I don't think that existence of a package in an
experimental category in Debian or any other distribution should make it
an automatic candidate for inclusion in Cygwin.

I might even go so far as to say that Debian unstable doesn't qualify
but I could be dissuaded from that view.

This doesn't pertain to this thread that I've hijacked but I keep
meaning to make this point.  Seeing the URLs above reminded me to
do so.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list