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
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: new cygwin package: cgoban
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:38:33 +1000
Message-ID: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5FB0@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>, <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g440ccm22882



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:04 AM

> Volker Zell agreed.  Nobody else responded.  I kinda like it, but FHS 
> has moved away from that; now on Red Hat systems it appears that ONLY 
> those programs specifically part of XFree86 are included there -- or 
> programs whose purpose is to manipulate XFree86 itself (like 
> third-party 
> Xconfigurators and such).

I'm agnostic on this one, I don't use X enough to really care. However,
Earnie has pointed out that extra path elements have a lamentable
performance impact, so perhaps we should be avoiding that?
 
> Similarly, I don't like the restriction that all 'X'-based 
> packages go 
> under XFree86/ on sourceware.  We don't put inetutils underneath 
> ncurses/.  We don't put openssh under openssl/.

I'm 100% with you here. If it's a package, then it goes under release.
If we want a completely separate tree, create a new location and a new
setup.ini, and then that becomes the cygwin-xfree lists domain, and they
can have whatever policy they want. Whilst it's in the main setup.ini,
they need to follow the policies that this list has hammered out - with
much pain.
 
> If you really want to segregate X apps, create another tree: Xopt/ or 
> something (and give Harold "official" control of that tree, too).  I 
> think XFree86/ should be reserved for the XFree86 distribution itself.

Agreed.
 
> I'd like to see a definitive answer to both of these questions, tho, 
> before we get too many X programs in the distribution...
>    1) --prefix=/usr/X11R6/

In short: I don't really care, but am not in favour of.

>    2) packages uploaded under XFree86/

Really don't like this.

Rob