This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Aug 14 22:28, Marco Atzeri wrote: > On 14/08/2014 21:21, Achim Gratz wrote: > >Yaakov Selkowitz writes: > >>This is a package ownership database, not a package information > >>database. What additional information do you think would be useful > >>here? > > > >Whether the package is available for both architectures > > Wrong expectation. > It is in both architectures if it appears in both setup.ini; > any other solution will create duplicated information that finally > need alignment and it is error prone. > > I plan to produce a list of sources by arch as by product of > the current analysis. > > Please note that the two trees are not exactly equal so there are > packages available only in 64 and not in 32bit > (biber is the first in alphabetical order) > > > >and if it's > >already converted to cygport for instance. From that database the > >current file can easily be created if necessary and any manual changes > >to the file could bootstrap a new entry in the database (so the new > >maintainer can upload). > > The build methods is maintainer choice. > I use cygport but I don't see a reason to mandate it. Tiny correction: New packages should use cygport. We should really all use the same packaging system. After all, you don't use rpm files on Debian or dpkg files on Fedora. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpZZ1_7nMAsr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |