On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 07:21, Max Bowsher wrote:
> I could have misinterpreted cgf's veto. I'm not entirely sure whether he was > vetoing the package, or the use of yet another build system. The build system per se doesn't matter. We hashed this out waay back. What matters is: The binary layout. The source layout. To that end we had two acceptable source layouts, and one acceptable binary layout, documented at http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html. I don't know why cgf veto'd the cygbuild package - and I'm not going to guess. I can't imagine the use of 'cygbuild' being veto'd - we'd have to pull quite a few packages if the build scripts are controlled... all of mine among them. That said, I really don't think we want to formalise the package creation script. If we -really- are heading to compatibility with any existing format, surely our efforts are bested directed to achieving that, not to (relatively minor) fiddling within our adhoc format. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://members.aardvark.net.au/lifeless/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
