Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Message-ID: <421CEF9B.EDF56FBD@dessent.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:03:23 -0800
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
Organization: My own little world...
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: packg mngmnt model & other cygwin package releases...(where did they come from?)
References: <4208270D DOT 4080801 AT tlinx DOT org> <20050208063149 DOT GB3096 AT efn DOT org> <42091B63 DOT 1080908 AT tlinx DOT org> <20050208234325 DOT GA2944 AT efn DOT org> <420AAF5E DOT 1030506 AT tlinx DOT org> <420AB5EC DOT 1070904 AT familiehaase DOT de> <420BB627 DOT 7040905 AT tlinx DOT org> <20050210200410 DOT GA3728 AT efn DOT org> <420BEEB6 DOT 3070303 AT x-ray DOT at> <421CCF9A DOT 5010202 AT tlinx DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0502231348470 DOT 25676 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <421CEAE3 DOT 3080401 AT tlinx DOT org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Linda W wrote:

>         Ahhh...hmm...I haven't understood (and am not entirely sure, if
> yet, I do) the package release mechanism.  I would have thought that
> package maintainers would have been able to check in their packages
> directly -- perhaps, at least, under the experimental release section.
> 
>         If I understand you correctly, package maintainers first have
> to announce something on cygwin-apps, then a few people who have
> "cygwin-package approval" status eventually find the time to check in the
> change?

No, you misunderstand.  Once the package has been approved the first
time, a maintainer can post a new version at any time in the future just
by saying "please upload new version x.y-z" and it is usually done by
someone with a sourceware account within a few hours.  There is no
approval or review involved.  Maybe you should actually review how this
all works before making long rants about it?

There is not the level of handholding that you invision.  In fact it's
even less now, as the new package policy is that any package that's
included in standard linux distros (I think debian is the one used as a
test) gets automatic approval.  All a new package requires is a GTG
review to make sure it's packaged competently.  Before, it required
votes from other package maintainers in addition to a review.

Your rant about "stuff not in cygwin" should be directed to the people
that decided not to contribute them.  In a lot of cases, someone wants
to "support" a package by making a single version of it available and
then never be seen again.  The cygwin project does not have many demands
of a "package maintainer" but the few demands that it does make require
that the person read cygwin-apps and generally be available when
problems arise.  For some people, that's too much, so they just post
junk on some site somewhere and ignore it until the heat death of the
universe.

In the specific case of cdrecord, check the archives.  It's been
discussed plenty.  There was a licensing issue.

Brian

--
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/