On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:10:50AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > > I thought about it but the point is that I cannot guarantee a > > continued commitment. > > Understandable. How about getting whatever you have now in? My point > is that we should get the ball rolling and see what will happen.
If you mean an ITP ( http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#ITP ) then no, as one of the requirements is "commitment" to maintain the package. If instead you mean passing to you all my notes and scripts about building LyX on Cygwin then I have no problem in doing so. > > I am not really interested in having users. > > But we are. The fact is that once lyx goes into cygwin, there will be > a lot more users, and lyx developers will have to re-think about > cygwin support. I think you have the right amount of energy to push that ;-) > > I build it for my personal use and I share it because nobody else > > provides a cygwin package. I hoped that by starting it, someone > > else could take over from me. > > Cygwin build tends to be simpler (?) to maintain than the native > build, since the building process and other features are more *nix > like and there is no installer to worry about. I am interested to > build cygwin/lyx after my painful experience with the native build. That is a real bonus. You can use the cygwin installation tool and all you need to do is writing a very simple setup.ini describing the package and its dependencies. Then you can write a bourne shell postinstall script which will be lanched by the installation tool. That's all. It takes me really no effort. If you try installing ftp://ftp.lyx.org/pub/lyx/bin/1.4.1/lyx-1.4.1-cygwin.tar.gz you will see how simple and quick an installation can be. Consider that in an official package you can set all the dependencies and have everything needed installed automatically. You only have to say "download setup.exe and select LyX for installation" nothing more. > > Currently I am dedicating far too much time to LyX than I can really > > afford and don't know for how long I can continue with this pace. > > Actually, this is also the case for me. ;-) > > IMO LyX/Cygwin is potentially better than the native version. > > For example, lyxclient works with it and reverse dvi search will > > be possible. > > I agree, but native build also has its advantages. I heard somebody > was talking about a unified version, but I guess that is impossible. > :-) Agreed. > > I already have > > a working patch making it behaving as a native application with regards > > to paths, but I am having big difficulties to get it accepted. > > The problem is that none of the other developers use cygwin so no one > can say anything for your patch, especially when it looks > intrusive.... Anyway, once my cygwin build works, at least I can test > your patches. That would be wonderful. > > Given that nobody is really interested in cygwin here, I fear that > > I will be the only one using it in my personal tree. > > That is not cost-efficient. :-) I have not a single free software installed which I do not patch to suit it to my needs ;-) > > The current consensus here is that a standard Windows user hates > > cygwin, but I think that there are many cygwin users that are > > potential users of LyX/Cygwin. IMO an official LyX/Cygwin would be > > a success. Are you interested in getting the baton? > > I am deciding what to do next with lyx. The windows side is obviously > the weak part of lyx so I think I can do something with the official > installer, or the cygwin one. If you can hang on and help me, can we > try together? (I think Uwe's installer is good enough now, I got > another positive response to that yesterday from one of my SWP > friends.) I am always available to help, so if you want to take it over I will actively support you. Only, I am scared by being an official maintainer. -- Enrico
