This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
- To: 'Charles Wilson' <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Subject: RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
- From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:15:00 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:53 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > "Why are you giving me a hard time! I'm a free software
> project!". Yes,
> > we hear this from time to time. The GPL is a legal binding
> > If you want to use it, you should be in compliance with it.
> You don't
> > get to ignore it because you consider yourself "one of the
> good guys".
> > It would be nice if life worked that way, but it doesn't.
> Yep. There ain't no sech thing as a "good guys get-out-of-jail-free"
> clause in the GPL.
Yeah, I agree, but in all places I know everyone, especially someone without
a police record, is presumed innocent...
> > It apparently isn't clear to you that "Cygwin's own
> installation tools"
> > were meant to install, um, the cygwin packages from the
> cygwin web site
> > and mirrors. They don't have accomodations for using other
> web sites or
> > being bundled as part of a larger package. That is what I
> was saying
> > above.
> But remember, setup is open source. You can grab the sources, modify
> them to your heart's content, and distribute THAT version of setup to
> install your cygwin-based add-on packages. (or just name
> your package
What I've read in the original posting was a discussion of how setup could
be enhaced to allow installation of unofficial cygwin packages, TOGETHER
WITH A PATCH and almost a firm commitment to rework it if it proves
I've heard so much answer in the line of "Please provide a patch" for
proposal of enhancements to setup.exe (and I perfectly understand that) that
I was a bit bitten by the answer done to a proposal that was carefully
explained and supplemented by a patch, which was in the line of "We have not
expected you to use setup.exe for anything else than for what we design it,
so your proposal was not interesting".
> BTW, XEmacs did exactly this: they're using a *heavily* modified
> version of cygwin's setup for distributing both the cygwin-
> and native-
> versions of XEmacs (they also have other "shrink-wrap" style
> for the native XEmacs).
Yes, but this is a bit different: They use a modified "setup" program to
install XEmacs *everywhere*. The *everywhere* mandates adapting a
cygwin-only installer. But using it to install, on a pre-existing cygwin
installation, a new cygwin package (amthough an unofficial one) seems to be
an use for which setup.exe should be *recommended*, not disdainfully
rejected by saying, "Sorry, I do not think you should do that".
Please let me be clear: I understand all of you when you answer "requests
for enhancement" by a "why don't you do it yourself: setup is open source".
But rebuffing someone that *offers* to do the job, and even propose a first
possible patch, by just saying "setup was not expected to be used that way"
is a bit brutal.
97 bis, rue de Colombes
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html