Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:44:46 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: setup wishes -- any volunteers Message-ID: <20010322224446.B23530@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <3ABAC557 DOT CE1EAEA8 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <3ABAC557.CE1EAEA8@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:39:03PM -0500 On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:39:03PM -0500, Charles S. Wilson wrote: >Robert Collins wrote: >> > The last time it made a difference was where I was forced to delay >> > a new net release for almost a year and a half for various silly >> > reasons. >> >> A side-question: could volunteers have made a release during that period >> (if they got their act together?) > >Probably not. AFAIRC, that was back when cygwin was distributed as a >monolithic "full.exe" which contained not only cygwin itself, but all of >the other packages and utilities. Just too big of a mess for any entity >other than cygnus to try and make a release. Now, with the new package >structure -- sure, rolling releases (and even "non-sanctioned" binary >builds of cygwin itself) are possible. Viva la GPL. Yeah, that's right. That wouldn't have stopped people from making an alternate type of release with tar balls or something. cgf