Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010503102349.0165cda8@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:38:02 -0400 To: Warren Young , egor duda From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: When will cygwin ever be stable? In-Reply-To: <3AF1515B.42137DE5@etr-usa.com> References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 7 DOT 2 DOT 20010501102110 DOT 02e99390 AT san-francisco DOT beasys DOT com> <17105307514 DOT 20010501224113 AT logos-m DOT ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:38 AM 5/3/2001, Warren Young wrote: >egor duda wrote: > > > > i wholeheartedly agree that lots of cygwin users will benefit from > > rock-stable cygwin. the main question is "what cygwin team should do > > for this?" > >To answer this it might be helpful to know where Cygwin is going. I >assume that the overall goal is stepwise refinement towards Linuxness or >similar. So, how far are we from that goal? Impossible to say, since the stated goal is so broad. I doubt there will ever be a day where everything done in Linux will transparently work in Cygwin. But if you want some idea of where things stand, I'd say the best indicator is the cygwin-apps list. This list is for people porting apps to Cygwin. Issues they encounter are the best indication of where Cygwin needs to go to support the packages people want to run. I think the main point to focus on here is that Cygwin is still very much a work in progress. Needed functionality is still missing. Until that changes or the set of "needed functionality" dwindles to a small enough amount that the vast majority don't care about it, I don't think it will be possible to address the needs of those who want a "rock-stable cygwin" and those who need the additional functionality with one branch of the code. Unfortunately, managing two branches isn't likely to happen without a lot more resource. That additional resource would need to be able to maintain, release, and provide technical support for the alternate Cygwin. Also, coordination with the "development" branch is required. Its not a trivial task but it could be done if there were enough volunteers to undertake this task. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 118 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple