Re: New application proposal - git-core SCM

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:51:44PM +0100, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 01:31:34PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 11:01:16PM +0100, Tim O Callaghan wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I would like to propose myself as the cygwin maintainer for git-core.
>> >http://www.kernel.org/git/
>> >
>> >This now works out of the box on cygwin, but it does not yet have a cygwin
>> >package. I have created the patch to make it to generate cygwin install
>> >packages, which i will be sending to the git people shortly. As this is my
>> >first cygwin submission, i'll see how i get on with this before i attempt
>> >to package Cogito ;)
>> >
>> >-------- setup.hint ---------
>> ># git-core setup.hint - file required by cygwin package manager
>> >#
>> ># short description
>> >sdesc: "Git-core - SCM Developed for the Linux kernel"
>> ># long description
>> >ldesc: "Git-core - SCM Developed for the Linux kernel - now available to
>> >the windows masses via the magic of Cygwin"
>> ># package category
>> >category: Archive Devel
>> ># depends
>> >requires: cygwin libiconv zlib openssl curl-devel diff merge ssh
>> >-------- setup.hint ---------
>> >
>> >URL's to packages will follow shortly.
>> 
>> I'm all for this package but, as a minor nit, I think your setup.hint is
>> a little too wordy.  Other than the first one, the comments don't add
>> any useful information and are, IMO, just clutter.
>> 
>
>IMHO having a description of what the file is, what it is for, and
>what the various options are, is only good manners. Especially if you
>want to submit it back to the vendor tree, which is probably not
>Cygwin aware.

Hopefully any software developer won't need a comment like:

  # package category
  category: Archive Devel

or

  # depends
  requires:

I think that these are similar to:

  i++;	/* increment i by one */

in that they are only visual clutter.

>I hope to submit the git 99.9 release in the next week. I will also
>probably be proposing to submit: autodoc, msmtp, mutt-ng, jassa-me/ne
>and a few others.

I don't know about the others but I don't think we want to have two
competing versions of mutt in the distribution.  I don't see mutt-ng in
any linux distro either so it would need to be voted on anyway.

cgf