Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2000/08/22/14:14:10
Chris Faylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:08:10AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> >--- Michael Ring <Michael DOT Ring AT t-mobil DOT de> wrote:
> >> perl-5.6.0 is perl period ;-)
> >>
> >-8<-
> >>
> >> PACKAGING STATUS:
> >>
> >> When tested this package should go nowhere (or perhaps contrib) version 5.6.1
> >> should go to contrib
> >>
> >
> >IMHO, automake, autoconf, libtool and perl should be a part of the base package
> >and therefore should go to the latest directory and not to the contrib
> >directory. Perl is required by the other three and automake, autoconf and
> >libtool [are|have] becom[ing|e] a de facto standard.
>
> I sort of agree but I wonder if we're starting to fill up the hard disks of people
> who have no interest in doing development.
This will not be an issue once DJ's improvements to setup.exe are
complete.
> We're also growing the "support load" on cygwin AT sourceware whenever we add a new
> package.
Now this is a real problem. But the whole idea, I thought, of the
package system was to make it easier to add and maintain additional
packages.
I wonder if the answer is a series of non-subscribable mailing lists:
cygwin-autoconf
cygwin-automake
etc
You got a question about automake on cygwin, send mail to
cygwin-automake. The message does NOT get posted immediatly, but is
routed to whatever poor fool is supporting automake on cygwin. He/She
approves and answers the message, and now that question is archived.
This will lead to a LOT of very low-volume mailing lists.
When a new or updated package is announced, there will obviously be a
lot of immediate discussion on the main cygwin list, but the constant
background how-do-I would migrate to the app-specific lists.
Good idea? Bad idea? Tremendously stupid idea? Nice idea but would never
work in reality?
--Chuck
- Raw text -