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: <014c01c1ef7a$153332d0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Earnie Boyd" <Cygwin-Apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc: "Earnie Boyd" <Cygwin-Apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <009f01c1ef6e$604748d0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3CCD2E26 DOT 67F1C620 AT yahoo DOT com> <011201c1ef73$86fc1730$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3CCD334C DOT BE5ADCF8 AT yahoo DOT com> <012801c1ef74$df0fbd40$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3CCD37C5 DOT C4C3D4A2 AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: Setup sources updated - cross compile or native OOTB.
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:33:34 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2002 12:33:28.0894 (UTC) FILETIME=[10BCC5E0:01C1EF7A]


===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earnie Boyd" <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>

> 1) I want the bleeding edge from CVS.
> 2) I don't want to have to have autotools to configure it.

Thats fine. WHY? I've asked this
here http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-04/msg00610.html and
here http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-04/msg00562.html.

I've receieved nothing other than
"everyone else does it" from 2 users (who are not in the habit of
submitting patches)
"I want HEAD CVS WITH NO AUTOTOOLS" from 1 users (who last submitted a
patch over a year ago).

Tell me WHY! giving you bleeding edge CVS with no autotools is so
important.

> 3) All the other sources.redhat.net packages do it that way.

By and large they do. It's not all though. Have a look sometime before
you make unfounded inaccurate assertions.
Chris talked about a toolchain, which isn't quite what we are talking
about here. We're talking about the installer, not a set of multipurpose
tools.

> 4) Chris Faylor, has said that it should be that way.

Chris said he agreed with you. He didn't say "Make it so."

> 5) No other answer will do, if you don't someone else will just have
to.

Thats not worthy of you. But please, go ahead and commit into a project
someone else is maintaining something that they object to.

> 6) Just do it, it hurts no one and makes everyone happy.

It doesn't make me happy. And given the relative code contributions to
setup.exe, I'd far rather have *me* happy than you, thank you very much.
And Likewise for everyone who is actively contributing code.

> 7) Philosophy has nothing to do with it, it's a psychological state of
> happiness.

Ok, I can accept that. So lie down on ze couch, and tell me vie you vant
HEAD CVS.

> 8) What's the big deal with adding a few files to the CVS?

It's a PITA. Diffs get bigger, Changelogs get garbage 'Makefile.in:
Regenerated.' entries. And when developers have different autotool
versions, committing becomes a PITA because you cannot commit the
generated files, or you end up with multiple huge patchs. And I think
that asking every developer to have the *same* autotool versions is a
much bigger ask than asking any CVS user to have *a* autotool version.

Rob