Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3C3F138B.3000908@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:32:11 -0500
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
CC:	cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject:	Re: new policy for packages
References:	<079301c19a87$404969a0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>

Robert Collins wrote:

> I want to suggest that the following become policy:
> 
> No new packages are accepted that require non-packaged prerequisites.
> 
> i.e. using rpm which was raised on cygwin@ recently,
> until db 3.2 is packaged and maintained by 'someone', rpm is not
> acceptable as a package.


I agree (in fact, I thought it already WAS the policy)

I know that postgresql/cygipc has already been mentioned as a 
(pre-existing) exception to that rule.  However, when postgresql was 
first considered and accepted for inclusion, we *knowingly* made that 
exception.  (For various reasons, technical, social, and political).

But I think the IPC exception should be limited to postgres (call it a 
grandfather clause).  IMO, other packages that want IPC should wait (or 
help) with the cygwin daemon and cygwin-IPC efforts.

--Chuck

- Raw text -