Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject:	Re: setup testers wanted
From:	Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<3BE250D7.5050501@ece.gatech.edu>
References:	<1004664322 DOT 5225 DOT 19 DOT camel AT lifelesswks>
	<20011102031557 DOT 74466 DOT qmail AT web20009 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
	<20011101224427 DOT B7348 AT redhat DOT com> <3BE250D7 DOT 5050501 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer:	Evolution/0.15 (Preview Release)
Date:	02 Nov 2001 19:08:20 +1100
Message-Id:	<1004688501.6940.5.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	02 Nov 2001 08:12:35.0858 (UTC) FILETIME=[21458720:01C16376]

On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 18:52, Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > 
> > It does raise the whole X11 issue, though.  I'd like to include the
> > X11 stuff in setup.exe, too.  Should we wait until we've ironed out
> > all of the bugs here first and then ask them what they want or should
> > we start making noises about this now in cygwin-xfree AT cygwin DOT com?
> 
> 
> I think we should wait.  Currently, the cygwin-xfree dist is 
> developer-friendly (e.g. download lots of tarballs, run a script and 
> answer lots of questions, and the script will install and configure 
> stuff "properly").  Translating that into a setup-compatible tarball 
> will take some work; IMO it'd be better to have a (mostly) stable 
> setup.exe *before* asking the cygwin-xfree folks to embark on that task.

Well, for the effort needed by them, we can reduce that because of the
dependency capability.
As for making it friendly, several packages (postgresql, sshd come to
mind) need out-of-setup configuration. I see no problem with XFree86
needing that as well.

I do agree with you though, until setup.exe is *ready* there is no point
getting anyone to start work. Once it's ready, we can release and
they've got a thing they can test with.

Rob

- Raw text -