Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: mdssdev05.comp.pge.com: esp5 set sender to esp5 AT pge DOT com using -f
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:26:38 -0800
From: "Edward S. Peschko" <esp5 AT pge DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cyclical dependencies in setup.ini?
Message-ID: <20040210062638.GA315@mdssdev05.comp.pge.com>
References: <20040210032015 DOT GA146 AT mdssdev05 DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20040209225210 DOT 0390e8e0 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> <20040210044053 DOT GA210 AT mdssdev05 DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <20040210050421 DOT GB5893 AT redhat DOT com> <20040210054159 DOT GA270 AT mdssdev05 DOT comp DOT pge DOT com> <20040210060658 DOT GA9177 AT redhat DOT 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
X-IsSubscribed: yes

> 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/