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