This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: On Cygwin package naming and a setup.exe bug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson []
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:53 PM
> To:
> 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 
> document.
> > 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 
> "prc-tools-cygwin-<version>.tar.gz")

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 
> installers 
> 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.



Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]