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>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
Subject:	RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing
MIME-Version:	1.0
Date:	Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:21:01 +1000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5E87@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>, <cygwin-xfree AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3JNZHs12778

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:48 AM

> >I didn't quite gather from the earlier discussions whether 
> we can have 
> >a source package seperate from any binary packages.  i.e., could we 
> >have XFree86-full-src without an associated binary package?  
> Or would 
> >we have to make XFree86-base-src the package that contained the full 
> >source archive.
> 
> Hmm.  Yes.  I think this would work.  That might be the best solution.
> 
> In fact, it may be a nice trend setter.

I think setup.exe needs a little work before doing this, but it's a good
direction. (i.e. setup.exe should have a view to only show src packages,
and a view to only show binaries - to avoid confusing folk). (Think
apt-get source vs apt-get install).

Rob

- Raw text -