Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/17/14:11:00
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:59:21PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>If someone wants to contribute, I think it should just be a standard
>>package.
>>
>>Chuck, I hate to say this, but I don't see a real reason for growing
>>cygutils. The more packages we add to cygutils, the more we go back to
>>the old way of installing cygwin packages -- with less fine-grained
>>control.
>
>A very good point. This is why both of the latest additions to
>cygutils were 'vetted' on the list before I added them:
>
>mkshortcut: recall the big discussion about whether it should be added
>to winsup/utils or cygutils...
>
>cygstart: this was also thrashed out on the list...although discussion
>centered on whether it should be called 'start' or 'cygstart' -- but
>the idea that it should be added to cygutils was part of the ongoing
>discussion (nobody objected, so...)
Yes, I watched the discussion and wondered if someone would raise
my above "objection".
I'm trying to scale back my cygwin activities as much as possible since
I've just been bumped up a notch in job responsibilities (14 people
reporting to me -- gcc+sim+gdb). So, I am trying very hard not to
jump in with an opinion or even a response in some cases.
I've actually drafted a couple "I don't think I can contribute to
cygwin anymore" messages but I couldn't bring myself to actually
send them because I couldn't make myself believe that I could go
cold turkey.
So, as evidence, I'm responding to this thread since I thought I was
seeing a trend here that needed commenting on.
>However, perusing the code it appears that "more" is fairly complex
>(even if it is all contained in a single file). For some reason, it
>offends my sensibilities to create a giant autotool'ed project with all
>the overhead (INSTALL, configure.ac, configure, Makefile.am,
>mkinstalldirs, ...) for just a single-file program. OTOH, turning
>cygutils into full.exe isn't a good idea, either.
It's funny but I thought that 'more' was part of the original Cygwin CD,
released in 1999, that was the inspiration for the cygwin net release.
I thought we moved everything from the CD into our net distribution but
I'm finding out, three years later, that that was not the case.
>It makes more sense to answer the "Where's more?" question with "In the
>'more' package" than "In the cygutils package". So, in this case I
>think you are right.
Good.
>>Maybe there is a good reason to have a general purpose utils package
>>that I'm missing. It just seems to me that this is adding a focus for
>>the cygwin package release on you -- a single point of contact.
>>Theoretically, we could be sharing the load if the contributed pieces
>>of cygutils were made into true cygwin packages.
>
>I have no objection if the original contributors want to take the
>cygutils source package, rip out everything that isn't (for instance)
>'mkshortcut'-related, and release a standalone autotool'ed mkshortcut.
>(However, I'm not pushing for that.)
Me neither, although I think it would actually make sense to do that.
>Tell you what, Chris: unless it is a single-source-file program that I
>personally wrote or ported, I won't add anything else to cygutils
>unless it meets with list approval (heck, that was pretty much my modus
>operandi, anyway).
Sounds like a plan.
cgf
- Raw text -