Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:26:38 -0800
From: "Edward S. Peschko" <esp5@pge.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: cyclical dependencies in setup.ini?
Message-ID: <20040210062638.GA315@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com>
References: <20040210032015.GA146@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20040209225210.0390e8e0@127.0.0.1> <20040210044053.GA210@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> <20040210050421.GB5893@redhat.com> <20040210054159.GA270@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com> <20040210060658.GA9177@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040210060658.GA9177@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

> I also know that build-depends is a real headache for Red Hat package
> maintainers so I'm not in a hurry to foist that extra bookkeeping
> headache on cygwin maintainers.  It's moderate effort for small
> gain given that there are other more important things that could
> be done with and to setup.exe.
> 
> However, if you are building the whole package, then why not just
> download...  the whole package?

well, I need to know which ones to *build* first, and which order
to build them.. Like I said I want to do it with as few deps as possible,
if possible just g++ and make, and shell. 

As for the reason *why* I'm doing this from scratch, well, it gives 
me freedom to encorporate packages that aren't technically 'cygwin'
packages, host patches that may or may not become part of a standard 
distributions, and build - or attempt to build - via other compilers
and linkers.

> >I'm assuming that these correspond to the -src.tar.bz2 pcakages inside
> >of the repository, and each one of these has .  However there are
> >makefiles which coordinate the build, above these directories (at level
> >winsup).  I'm assuming that these aren't part of any package that is
> >distributed.  I could be wrong.
> 
> Could be, and are.  There is no need to speculate when simple inspection
> of the source tarballs and of the CVS repository would show you how
> things are laid out.  There is no need to assume that things are broken
> rather than working.

ok, I misread. 'cygrunsrv' for cygsrv, assumed 'cygwin' == cygwin, mingw-runtime
== mingw, etc. In order to do a 'simple inspection' I would need to download
these all. I thought it'd be simpler to ask.

anyways, I'll plow through it and see what happens.

Ed

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/