Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <119420-220034417153419407@M2W069.mail2web.com>
Reply-To: lhall AT rfk DOT com
From: "lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com" <lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
To: bob DOT fletcher AT ae DOT ge DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, gord_wait AT spectrumsignal DOT com
Subject: RE: A request?
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:34:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Bob,

Thanks for your email.  AFAICS, these points have been made before
and responses can be found in the email archives.  However, I'll 
summarize them here for the convenience of anyone who is interested
in following through on the points made below:

  1. There is general agreement that there would be a benefit to the 
     user community to have a 2 tier release structure a la Linux et al.
     The only thing missing is volunteers willing to undertake the task 
     of making this happen or somebody willing to fund an effort to spur
     interest of "volunteers". ;-)  

  2. There are many approaches to creating your own, controllable snapshot
     of the Cygwin distribution.  The approach you suggest isn't recommended
     since it relies on the knowledge of mount points in the registry, which
     is an implementation detail and *will* be changing.  So this procedure
     will cease to work in the future.  'mount' should always be used to 
     create, remove, and manipulate Cygwin's mount points.  It will *always*
     work regardless of the underlying implementation.  Generally speaking,
     this list recommends setting up a local mirror and using it with 
     setup.exe as the best way to replicate a local snapshot of the
     Cygwin distribution.  However, I think everyone would agree that 
     creating a snapshot of Cygwin that can be easily installed on many 
     machines is not the same as generating, maintaining, testing,
packaging,
     and releasing two branches of the Cygwin distribution.

I'd recommend that anyone interested in either of these topics to visit the
archives for background discussion and any of the finer points previously
covered.

HTH,

Larry


Original Message:
-----------------
From: Fletcher, Bob (GEAE, IT) bob DOT fletcher AT ae DOT ge DOT com
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:43:21 -0400
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, Gord_Wait AT spectrumsignal DOT com
Subject: RE: A request?


I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'll jump in anyway.

To the original question; I'd like to violate group etiquette and throw in
a big
"Me to". Having a cleaner versioning process would be a big benefit to
cygwin.

Also to the original question, a suggestion. I have the same problem. I've
taken
the approach of running 'setup' on a box, then capturing the files, my
preferred
mount points, path settings and anything else I want to change, and
building a
Microsoft format "msi' package. I can put this on a server and distribute
it to
internal users and they get exactly my configuration.  BTW, all you really
need
is a zip of the cygwin directory and  .reg file dump  of 
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Cygnus Solutions
The MSI is just a bit easier to install, and I can pput in the shortcuts for
people.

Third, in response to cgf
>Sorry but you are not a customer.  You're a user.  There is a subtle
>difference.  Being a customer implies some seller/buyer relationship
>which would entitle you to some kind of service from the seller.  Cygwin
>is offered as-is to you with nothing guaranteed other than you get the
>source.

I'd love to be a customer! I keep asking Redhat about it, but there's no
product
to buy. I think that if you offered a cleaner distribution, you'd have a
viable
product. It works for Redhat linux.... ActiveState Perl, Tcl ect. Other
companies offer similar Unix-like products, but cygwin is better. :)  

( Would someone at Redhat please copy this to Rebecca Ward AT redhat. I can't
find
her email, I doubt she reads the list.)

Bob.


	g             GE Aircraft Engines
	______________________________________________
	     Bob Fletcher
	     Analysis and Engineering Systems
	     GE Aircraft Engines,  
	     1 Neumann Way, Evendale, OH 45215


-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:03 PM
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: A request?


On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:43:36PM -0700, Karl M wrote:
>>If you want predictable behavior, then you should probably burn a CD
>>with the source code as well and pass it around.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You don't need to put the source code on a CD supplied to co-workers.

cgf

--
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/

--
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/


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


--
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/