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: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3B92BD8E.40802@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 19:15:26 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010713
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygipc packaging was Updated setup.ini with descriptions, categories, and dependencies
References: <3B8C2682 DOT DE851E18 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <000b01c133a3$0145ec10$7d6707d5 AT BRAMSCHE> <20010902114632 DOT C9517 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:


> I have my famous "mixed feelings" about including the cygipc package as
> a downloadable option for cygwin.  If people are accustomed to thinking
> that it is part of cygwin, I think that the incentive for writing our
> own daemon is going to be much less.  And, we really do need our own
> daemon for doing a lot of things.
> 
> So, my feeling is that cygipc should not be included by default.
> However, I am willing to be swayed in this decision if the other
> developers think that it really would be a good idea to include it.  To
> be clear -- we can't release it as part of cygwin itself but we could
> release it as a separate package.


I agree with Chris (mostly), except that I lean more to the middle.  I 
*would* believe that cygipc should not be included (as an 
official-but-separate package, yadda yadda yadda) -- except that IF the 
conditions I outlined in my earlier message are met, then I get to 
relinquish maintaining a package!  (So, there's a bit of self-interest 
there).

Currently, even though cygipc is not an official package, I do maintain 
it, incorporate new patches, field email onlist and off, etc.  IF 
someone else were to volunteer to take over that maintainership, then 
I'd help that person package cygipc up as an official 
(setup-installable, cygwin-mirrors style) package.  And then step back 
and let "the new maintainer" handle it from there.

So, while I think that adding cygipc as an "official" package will 
detract from other forward progress (the cygwin daemon, etc) and is a 
marginally bad thing, my self-interest in giving up maintainership of a 
package pushes me to be more positively inclined than I might otherwise be.

--Chuck