Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 13:43:08 -0500 To: "Patrick J. LoPresti" Cc: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Maintainers wanted Message-ID: <19991119134308.A17744@cygnus.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Patrick J. LoPresti" , cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com References: <19991118160433 DOT A13395 AT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from patl@cag.lcs.mit.edu on Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 12:46:34PM -0500 On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 12:46:34PM -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >>>>>> "cgf" == Chris Faylor writes: >cgf> What I would like to do is break each of these up into its own >cgf> tar file and then provide the maintainer with a way to upload cgf> >updated tar files into an incoming area. > >Wouldn't a CVS repository be superior in every respect to uploading >tarballs? It would be more efficient for the maintainer, have a >revision history, make it easier for others to monitor and >contribute... How would this work? A maintainer uploads a binary release to CVS and then... what? We tell people who are interested in downloading the bash distribution that they set up CVS and check out bash.exe and any other files that are required to /bin? Hopefully, any maintainer of something like bash will be using whatever setup exists for bash already. If they have to make a change to get things compiled under cygwin they will send a patch or check in a change or whatever to the bash maintainer. I don't think that it will be profitable for us to be running a "competing" service for packages that cygnus does not host. cgf