Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: RE: "local install"? Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:04:31 +1100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "local install"? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Thread-Index: AcHBUqa0goVxrrUJTYiYrvA495o4DQAKxz7Q From: "Robert Collins" To: "Charles Wilson" , "Randall R Schulz" content-class: urn:content-classes:message Cc: "Markus Hoenicka" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g2206jA19093 > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu] > Perhaps the Emacs folks (NOT XEmacs -- they already have a different > solution) will create a cygwin-setup dirtree once their > cygwin port is > complete. Perhaps folks who have ported a package and want > to make it > available, but do NOT want to accept the maintainership > responsibilities > that go with *official* package inclusion, will create > cygwin-setup-compatible distribution sites with custom setup.ini's. > These are all great things, and are reason enough for the multi-site > selection capability -- regardless of whether YOU actually use that > particular feature. Yes - federation is good. RPM and .deb achieved this a long time ago... And now we do to :]. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/