This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: generic-build-script extension to update version numbers in README
- From: Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:29:32 -0500
- Subject: Re: generic-build-script extension to update version numbers in README
- References: <437E4CD3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <437E7606.email@example.com> <Pine.GSO.firstname.lastname@example.org> <437F3A70.email@example.com> <437F71E8.firstname.lastname@example.org> <437FD33C.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
Hey you guys, you're going to recreate whole package build management
systems like debian has it, or gentoo, or even slackware.
Yes, there is a fine line here. IF we want a true, full, pkg build
management system we'd do better not to reinvent the wheel. But this
impacts the package-delivery system as well: setup.exe. If you use
dpkg/rpm/emerge for build management, do you teach setup about
dpkg/rpm/emerge files? Or do you abandon setup.exe and start over, with
some gui driver for dpkg/rpm/emerge -- and teach that gui about
replace-inuse-files and other cygwin/win32 trivia?
But note the initial 'IF'. I'm not sure we DO want a full, build
management system. How high a bar do you want to set for new package
maintainers? Right now, editing a script is a fairly simple task for a
newbie ... I fear "buildscript.sh.in" and getting a 'maintainer toolset'
set up. That's why I've suggested that the basic gbs stay the same;
only add-on features would be external. And newbies could learn _those_
on an as-needed basis, because the core gbs (as customized per-package)
has everything that's truly NEEDED to get a build working.
a GUI for this? Maybe based on Qt, so at least maintainers are forced
to install and use at least 90% of all Cygwin packages which would
increase usability over the years.
Gerrit, are you volunteering to take over management of all of my packages?
I have no intention of installing either KDE, Qt, GTK, or Gnome on my
windows box. If I want those GUIs, I'll run them on a linux box and not
thru an emulation layer, thankyouverymuch.
Let's NEVER get in the habit of saying "...we should FORCE maintainers
to...". I like the FREE software culture because it is FREE, and not
driven by authoritarian control freaks (although the Debian Social
Contract makes me wonder sometimes). Please don't turn cygwin into a