Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2000/08/22/14:34:42
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:13:54PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> 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.
That's true, in theory, but until and if we get subclassifications there will
be a lot of people who always choose the default because they have no idea if
they need "autoconf" or not.
>> 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?
I dunno. I think it would probably be best to just use the existing mailing
lists for this. If we start making a mailing list for every cygwin package
it will get pretty unmanageable. I'll be spending 90% of my time saying
"This is off-topic for this mailing list". :-)
cgf
- Raw text -