Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3D0250BA.3000201@netscape.net>
Date:	Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:45:14 -0400
From:	Nicholas Wourms <nwourms AT netscape DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: package offering: gnupg
References:	<3D01D259 DOT 9080508 AT scytek DOT de> <8657450619 DOT 20020608141448 AT familiehaase DOT de> <20020608154613 DOT GB15922 AT redhat DOT com>

Hmm...

I think Chuck better look at the buildscript, there seem to be a couple 
of (unnecessary?)kludges throughout the script.  For instance, 
re-autoconfilizing the autoscripts shouldn't be a necessary step in the 
user build process.  You should do that ahead of time, delete the 
autom4ate.cache and other garbage, then make a diff against the 
results...  There are a few other things that could be improved in the 
source package ( but I'll leave it to the veteran package maintainers to 
comment ), but AFAICT the binary package works fine.

Cheers,
Nicholas

>I think we'd all like to get this in the distribution.  Has anyone reviewed
>the packaging?
>
>cgf
>  
>

- Raw text -