>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00510.html > > Wow. Insightful email.
as usual... > Well, I guess I haven't been paying much attention to your and Robert's > packages. I'd forgotten that I'd suggested that we package as we see > fit and foolishly looked to what I supposed was the final word on the > subject. It's been a bit of a mess. In my original email to this thread, I summarized the three packaging styles (I won't call them standards) that are currently, actually, in use. That doesn't mean I think having 3 different styles -- only one of which is actually documented somewhere official -- is a good idea. OTOH, since the longwinded discussion last November (and its resolution sans an actual standard), Robert and I (and a few others) have been "standardizing" one way (which was a compromise in and of itself). So there are only 3 extant styles, not 47. Which is something. > I'll just leave the documentation as is so we can have this truly > delightful conversation again in a couple of months. Actually, if there's no opposition (hah!) I'll update the documentation to reflect the current situation (e.g. 3 styles) -- but I'd like to mark one of them as the preferred style for new packages. Hopefully mine and robert's style. ;-) > Yeah, yeah. I don't need another 183 line justification message, > thanks. I've got it. Chris, in private mail I would've just sent you the one link and I *know* that would've been sufficient. However, on a public list a little more info, background, and justification is needed -- if only to forestall the inevitable hue and cry. > The wget packaging is just peachy. <g> --Chuck