On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 18:52, Charles S. Wilson wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > > It does raise the whole X11 issue, though. I'd like to include the > > X11 stuff in setup.exe, too. Should we wait until we've ironed out > > all of the bugs here first and then ask them what they want or should > > we start making noises about this now in [EMAIL PROTECTED]? > > > I think we should wait. Currently, the cygwin-xfree dist is > developer-friendly (e.g. download lots of tarballs, run a script and > answer lots of questions, and the script will install and configure > stuff "properly"). Translating that into a setup-compatible tarball > will take some work; IMO it'd be better to have a (mostly) stable > setup.exe *before* asking the cygwin-xfree folks to embark on that task.
Well, for the effort needed by them, we can reduce that because of the dependency capability. As for making it friendly, several packages (postgresql, sshd come to mind) need out-of-setup configuration. I see no problem with XFree86 needing that as well. I do agree with you though, until setup.exe is *ready* there is no point getting anyone to start work. Once it's ready, we can release and they've got a thing they can test with. Rob
