On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:54:05AM +0200, Jean-Michel POURE wrote: >Le Jeudi 9 Mai 2002 02:20, John Ineson a ?crit : >> What you're setting out here is interesting, but is a bit different from >> what was previously envisioned. The initial design was probably more >> Debian/Cygwin than Debian/w32, but people have mentioned LINE too. >> By making Cygwin optional I personally suspect you'd break an >> unmanageable number of things, without really gaining much, BICBW. > >There are a number of excellent Windows native software and I don't see the >reason why we should re-compile them under Cygwin. > >Always using Cygwin would mess-up the user with three versions: >- Native Windows from the vendor website, >- Cygwin from Cygwin website, >- W32/GNU here. > >Instead, we could offer the best of both worlds using a single-stop W32/Debian >super-installer : > >1) Windows native dpkg, > >2) Cygwin dll package, > >3) Windows native packages : >- Apache + PHP, >- Python, >- CVS, >- diff, >- WinCVS, >- openoffice, >- perl, >- dev-C++, >- Cygwin. > >4) Cygwin dependant packages : >- Gnome, >- KDE, >- PostgreSQL. > >Technical issues for offering solutions from both worlds: >- path compatibility (which should be Unix style everywhere as stated in the >Debian charter. This will be the only visible change for native Windows >users),
That will be a BIG change for any tools that are not "cygwin-native". If you are going to make that a goal, why not just convert the tools to cygwin? >- we need a tools that can write/update the Windows registry, Why? The only registry manipulation that cygwin does is for the mount table. The "mount" command does this very well. cgf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
