* Fri 2003-07-11 Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> list.cygwin-apps * Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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?
Oh, I don't mind if someone takes over maintaining the packages. It will be less burden to me with all my other projects. The only motivation why I used hours to make cygbuild, was that, If I ever intentended to build something to cygwin, I surely wanted the maintenence to be as easy as possibly. I believe I have achieved that with cygbuild. But of course, it's just me. I cannot speak for others how they amintain their ports. I guess anything that "makes life easier" is worth it, eh? > 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. I'll be here as if I found more software to port, I'll sure hit my ey on it, being a regular Linux Magazine reader :-) Jari -- http://tiny-tools.sourceforge.net/ Swatch @time http://www.ryanthiessen.com/swatch/resources.htm Convert @time http://www.mir.com.my/iTime/itime.htm
