Thu Aug 14 20:28:00 GMT 2014
On 14/08/2014 21:21, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
>> This is a package ownership database, not a package information
>> database. What additional information do you think would be useful
> Whether the package is available for both architectures
It is in both architectures if it appears in both setup.ini;
any other solution will create duplicated information that finally
need alignment and it is error prone.
I plan to produce a list of sources by arch as by product of
the current analysis.
Please note that the two trees are not exactly equal so there are
packages available only in 64 and not in 32bit
(biber is the first in alphabetical order)
> and if it's
> already converted to cygport for instance. From that database the
> current file can easily be created if necessary and any manual changes
> to the file could bootstrap a new entry in the database (so the new
> maintainer can upload).
The build methods is maintainer choice.
I use cygport but I don't see a reason to mandate it.
I do not follow the rest of your statement,
could you clarify the expected outcome ?
More information about the Cygwin-apps