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
From: "Paul G." <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>
Organization: New Dawn Productions
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:07:08 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Remove cinstall src directory from snapshots
Reply-to: Paul Garceau <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>
Message-ID: <3BFE742C.15281.914FBD@localhost>
In-reply-to: <20011123223737.GA28560@redhat.com>
References: <03f501c1732c$21f2a570$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body



On 23 Nov 2001 at 17:37, the Illustrious Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 07:03:11PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
> >
> >
> >> How should the sources for utils and cinstall be distributed?
> >>
> >> I have just managed to separate winsup/utils as a separate binary
> >> release but I'm not 100% certain how to release the sources.
> >>
> >> winsup/utils is pretty useless without the cygwin directories, I
> >think.
> >> It can probably get by with the installed mingw/w32api, though.
> >>
> >> So, I'm not sure how to release utils.  Maybe I need to separate out
> >> the parts of cygwin that get used by utils and put it in a separate
> >> directory.
> >
> >I don't think so, there's no reason that the source for utils isn't
> >cygwin-1.5.3-1-src.tar.bz2.
> 
> I thought of that but then I'd have to release a version of cygwin sources
> with winsup/utils that  had no relationship to the net release.  Maybe that's
> not a problem.  You don't think we'd have people trying to build cygwin itself
> from these sources?

	I can't speak for Robert, so what follows changes in deference to the Cygwin Setup.exe maintainers' reply and 
should only be thought of as one persons experience with Cygwin Setup.exe.  There is an added assumption I am 
including, that whoever is building setup.exe is at least advanced enough to deal with multiple Windows platform 
development considerations as well as multiple language development considerations (such as C/C++).

	I have personally attempted to build setup.exe using only the winsup/cinstall source within the Cygwin 
environment.  Initial Setup.exe build failed (first run).

	Whether it was due to inexperience with building setup.exe or due to something else, I ended up resorting to a 
complete rebuild of cygwin1.dll before setup.exe would even begin to link properly (second run).  It still failed on second 
run.  By that point, however, I had a very good idea of what was needed before a so-called "clean" build of Setup.exe could 
be generated.

	So, to address the query cgf presented, the possibility is definitely there that someone may attempt to rebuild all 
of Cygwin from nothing but the winsup/utils.  We already know that Setup.exe has a certain dependency, in its current 
form, on cygwin1.dll as well as several other utilities (bash, bz2, zlib, etc.) that may or may not be included as part of a 
winsup/utils source collection.

	If you mean the entire Cygwin Tool Set, I would say it is "highly" unlikely that anyone who knows even a little 
about multi-platform development (specifically Windows/*nix) would ever want to be required to rebuild the entire Cygwin 
Tool Set every time a new version of Setup.exe was generated.

	Paul G.