Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 12:04:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: So, *should* I go back to distributing the mingw/w32api sources
  in the cygwin source tarball?
In-Reply-To: <20030208164444.GA8989@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0302081149050.12312-100000@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h18H4HW00519

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> The subject says it all.  If I don't distribute the mingw and w32api
> sources, I stand the chance of releasing a version of the sources that
> won't build until the next release of mingw or w32api.  I don't want to
> have to go through the effort of coordinating with Earnie every time I
> release cygwin so the alternative is to go back to including the mingw
> and w32api sources in the cygwin source tarball.
>
> I don't like the thought of duplication here but I guess I've finally
> grown weary of the bug reports from people who can't build from the
> sources available via tarball.
>
> I could include a top-level readme file in the source directory saying
> that the w32api and mingw directories are just snapshots and are not
> intended for installation.  Or, I could install up a top-level readme
> that says "Don't be a schmuck.  Use CVS."  Or, I could just keep pointing
> at the FAQ and refining it as we go along.
>
> So, which is the "meanest" alternative here?  I honestly don't know and
> am willing to go with whatever people suggest.
>
> Btw, please don't cc this thread to the cygwin mailing list.  I sent it
> here for a reason.  I don't want to open up discussion to everybody in
> the world.
>
> cgf

Chris,

I know the tags are just for your convenience, and you wouldn't want to
tag the whole repository anyway for Cygwin releases, but could we,
perhaps, just have a file somewhere with the exact checkout dates of each
packaged Cygwin release (e.g. "RELEASES" in the winsup/cygwin directory)?
That way, if anyone wanted to build some particular release, they could
just check out from CVS with the appropriate date, and they wouldn't need
any tags at all.  Plus, you wouldn't need to include w32api and mingw
directories in the source tarball, and the source tarball could be just
for reference.

Hopefully, people only try to build from source tarballs to reproduce the
exact DLL version...  They could do that with dated checkout as well.
And people unable to use CVS shouldn't be trying to build the Cygwin DLL
at all.  Just my 2¢.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
  -- /usr/games/fortune