This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITP] Macaulay2 1.1
You must be reading her message differently from the way I did.
In any case, if it were to turn out that Macaulay 2 were interesting to cygwin,
but one of the libraries Macaulay 2 depends on was not interesting to cygwin,
then I wouldn't have to package that library, would I? I could just include
the source for it in the Macaulay 2 package. Otherwise it's a catch-22.
So I think the question of whether ITP's for the dependent packages would
succeed on their own merits is moot.
> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:56:49 -0600
> From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [ITP] Macaulay2 1.1
> On 14 November, Corinna explained that you (or someone else) will
> need to ITP the yet-unpackaged dependencies as well before this can be
> seriously considered. AFAICS that hasn't happened yet, so I think the
> question of interest is still moot.
>  http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2008-11/msg00100.html