On forming a SC [was Re: ITP moratorium still in effect?]

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:41:54AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 28 17:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I can't speak for Corinna, but I would rather *not* have to be the bad
>> guy or a single (double?) point of contact.  I would rather have more
>> community involvement.  I'm already drowning in being the focal point
>> for most cygwin bugs with help from only two other developers.  I don't
>> want to invent new things for me or Corinna to do, especially when there
>> is no requirement for in-depth cygwin knowledge.
>
>I second the idea of a community driven cygwin net distribution and I
>would say that it's basically already the case.  It's just that the
>appoval and review process is a bit... well, uncontrolled or unreliable.
>Therefore to have a sort of a commitee, a bunch of people who feel
>responsible for the net distro, would probably be a good idea.
>
>However, I think Chris and I shouldn't be involved much in this
>process at all.  I can't speak for Chris, but I told him once on the
>phone, that from my point of view we are just maintainers for one
>component of the net distro, the Cygwin package itself (ignoring for now
>the other random packages which we maintain).
>
>> Setting up a council or committee to approve or disprove apps means
>> that the load is shared and there theoretically a consistent way for
>> packages to be included.
>
>With both of us not being member of the comittee, IMO.  A veto right
>would be ok but it should only be excersised when absolutely necessary
>(e. g. legal problems).
>
>> >Another approach might be to ask: "Do the Linux vendors support it?". 
>> 
>> That is exactly an idea that I was going to propose.  I was waiting to
>> see where the discussion was going first.  I was going to use actually
>> veto ac-archive on this basis but then noticed that when I typed:
>> 
>>   up2date ac-archive
>> 
>> ac-archive got pulled into my fedora-based system.   So vetoing ac-archive
>> because for this reason wouldn't work.
>
>Hmm.  I don't like the idea.  We should really keep in mind that
>
>1. All Linux distros are different
>2. Cygwin is not Linux
>
>Which distro of Linux will we use as role model?  Red Hat?  Fedora?  SuSE?
>Debian?  Connectiva?

*any* distro.  That is what I was looking for.  If no distro contains ac-archive
then there needs to be special dispensation.

>> I don't think that the current setup.exe is dumbed down.  It just isn't
>> really feature-rich.
>
>That's true.  I'm wondering mostly about stuff like, for instance,
>jumping immediately to the package selection, keeping all other
>settings, including the mirror.  This would allow running w/o having to
>retrieve the mirror list from cygwin.com.  Or no questions about desktop
>icon and start menu entry.

Yep.  That's just a simple matter of coding.

>However, it *would* be nice to have a rpm based system, wouldn't it?

I guess.  I shudder at the thought of what would be involved to get rpm
working on a first time installation, though.

cgf