cygwin-pkg-maint maintance

Corinna Vinschen
Thu Aug 14 20:51:00 GMT 2014

On Aug 14 22:28, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> 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
> >>here?
> >
> >Whether the package is available for both architectures
> Wrong expectation.
> 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.

Tiny correction:  New packages should use cygport.  We should really all
use the same packaging system.  After all, you don't use rpm files on
Debian or dpkg files on Fedora.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list