Pending package status (11 Jul 2003)

[Charles Wilson]

Nicholas Wourms wrote:


>>
>> Right. Sorry. Just the using cygbuild (as apposed to gbs) is allowed.
> 
> 
> While technically this is true, I really can't see the difference 
> between the two.  For simplicity's sake, using a common script for 
> method II would be most helpful.  I'm willing to do the conversion for 
> gc & cabextract.

Nicholas, you're not maintaining cabextract or gc; Jari is.  What 
matters is what tool the actual maintainer wants to use.

If you "convert" gc to build using gbs, how happy do you think Jari will 
be to be forced to use what he considers an inferior tool?  How 
motivated will Jari be to keep the packages up-to-date?

Viva libre!

We mandate the layout of binary packages.  We mandate that you must be 
able to build the package on cygwin using freely available tools.  We 
mandate that official packages may only depend -- at runtime, not 
buildtime -- on other official packages (cygipc/postgresql 
notwithstanding).  That's it.

I welcome improvements to gbs.  But lets not march down the no-freedom 
road; let Jari be Jari.

--
Chuck