-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
| The latest on coreutils is that it's still not ready to go mainstream
| (http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00150.html).
What is the current status on this? I still have it in my ITP queue and
my Bugzilla is starting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christopher Faylor wrote:
| On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:02:55PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
|
|cgf wrote:
|
|
|I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the
|distribution, however.
|
|Possibly we need a gdb packages steering
On Apr 1 10:39, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
| The latest on coreutils is that it's still not ready to go mainstream
| (http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00150.html).
What is the current status on this? I
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
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
cgf wrote:
I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the
distribution, however.
Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on
these things. It could have rules like a package needs a simple
majority vote to be a candidate for inclusion. I'd envision seven
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:02:55PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
cgf wrote:
I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the
distribution, however.
Possibly we need a gdb packages steering committee which decides on
these things. It could have rules like a package needs a simple
Yes, someone did. I have no problem with moving to a new installer
interface but, given the current level of development, I don't see who's
going to do the work. If we don't have a volunteer available to
do the work of adapting NSIS but we do have volunteers available to
keep setup.exe working
--- chris jefferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, someone did. I have no problem with moving to a new installer
Has moving to one of the existing linux packaging systems been
considered? This would I think require changing cygwin so first you
download a minimum package that just includes
Is the ITP moratorium declared in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect?
The latest on coreutils is that it's still not ready to go mainstream
(http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00150.html).
Igor
--
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Is the ITP moratorium declared in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect?
Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear.
I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into the
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Is the ITP moratorium declared in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect?
Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear.
I'd like to explore new methods for getting packages into
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Is the ITP moratorium declared in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect?
Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that clear.
I'd also
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I'd also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be
included, remembering that we have a software web page at cygwin.com
which can be used to advertise
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:23:42PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Is the ITP moratorium declared in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect?
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:30:51PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: I'd
also like to see a formal justification for why a package should be
included, remembering that we have a
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:23:42PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote:
How do you submit something now that
http://cygwin.com/ported.html doesn't contain any form ?
It never contained a form. You use the form on the main cygwin page.
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:27:01PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:05:11PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
Is the ITP moratorium declared in
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2004-03/msg00036.html still in effect?
Nope. Daniel's back. Sorry that I never made that
18 matches
Mail list logo
