On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:59:38 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: >>note that, after the long discussion at debian-devel, >>I had chosen that the architecture name should be 'w32' >>but the name in sourceforge is debian-cygwin >Okay, "uname -a" should print "w32"
I do have a question about this.... What will be the key that differentiates between packages that rely on cygwin vs packages that are built soley for native Windows? My meaning is that while there seems to be not much enthusiasm for creating a debian environment for native MS Windows, there very well might be, and that would be a whole new set of binaries, with a slighly different machine architectural flavor, and THAT would be a more likely candidate for w32, at least in my estimation. However, if everyone else agrees that we can/should use w32 for the cygwin environment, I will go with it. This is one issue that I would like to see hammered out fairly early in the process, because every time it changes, it causes a recompile/rebuild of every package in existance for that architecture (speaking from painful experience....) > >> >>I would like also to point out that: >>we should join forces with www.sf.net/projects/debian-cygwin; >>in particular, it would be nicer if there was only one mailing list >>for debian-w32 >>(not that the list at sourceforge has had any traffic yet..) >IMHO is [email protected] fine > >> >>if you want to see what I have done so far, please refer to >> http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/Debian-w32 > >http://Tonelli.sns.it/pub/Debian-w32/Debian_GNU_w32.html to start > >>
