Message-ID: <47F6EA4F.5865B471@dessent.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:56:15 -0700
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: gettext latest vers. 0.17
References: <20080405095403 DOT 2168 AT blackhawk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
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

wynfield AT gmail DOT com wrote:

> My question is the usage of "cygport" really required to be used.  I certainly 
Of course it's not required.  The maintainer can use any method he
wants.  The fact that Chuck switched *to* cygport from the previous
homegrown g-b-s method he used should tell you something about how much
time it can potentially save.

> feel that it should not be required and it has certainly appeared to hamper a lot of progress in maintenance and updates of existing packages.

You take one instance of one package being delayed and extrapolate that
to some kind of general statement, but you neglect the hundreds of
packages where cygport works smoothly without fuss and allows for
maintainers to put out updated packages with greater speed than the old
g-b-s.  Again, the choice to use cygport is entirely up to the
maintainer, so they would not be using it if they thought it would not
save them time.

> It is a tool, best know by its developer, but it is merely a tool and should not be a required one.  Cygwin already has a specification for packages, the only requirement should be that a package meets that specification, not how it was accomplished.

There is no such requirement.  The maintainer can do it however he
likes.  The fact is that Chuck has chosen to trade the temporary delay
of one package for the eventual infrastructure improvement which would
save more time in the future.  That's his choice.  As current maintainer
on record for approximately 100 packages in the distro I think he has a
pretty good idea what all is involved and what will save him time in the
future.

> It would be great to allow that freedom and then we can get a latest update of gettext and all would be happy.

Build gettext yourself if you want a newer version.  This is FOSS,
you're not helpless.

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/