Linux distro qualification clarification

Corinna Vinschen
Fri Nov 4 10:03:00 GMT 2005

On Nov  3 14:21, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >FWIW,
> >
> >Debian:
> >
> >
> >Gentoo:
> >;name=gnubg
> 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.

I'd like to add a simple point which does pertain to this thread.

Dear maintainers, please don't forget to add the Linux distro information
to your ITP.  I'm not going to search for the distros in which the package
might be included myself anymore.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list