Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: michael-ring AT t-online DOT de (Michael Ring)
To: cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: perl-5.6.0 ready for test! (IMPORTANT READ THIS MESSAGE ON MAINTAINER STATUS!)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:59:32 +0200
Message-ID: <k3i5qso5fv4oquq7t3t0ghoelcn3do8mbd@4ax.com>
References: <20000822120810 DOT 11721 DOT qmail AT web106 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <20000822124410 DOT D28312 AT cygnus DOT com> <39A2C2E2 DOT CBDB94D1 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20000822143226 DOT A29889 AT cygnus DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <20000822143226.A29889@cygnus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:32:26 -0400, you wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:13:54PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> I sort of agree but I wonder if we're starting to fill up the hard disks of people
>>> who have no interest in doing development.
>>
>>This will not be an issue once DJ's improvements to setup.exe are
>>complete.
>
>That's true, in theory, but until and if we get subclassifications there will
>be a lot of people who always choose the default because they have no idea if
>they need "autoconf" or not.

I think developer / user / custom should help in most cases.

I like systems where you can choose a default and then later you can
add/remove from the selected list at your own will.

>
>>> We're also growing the "support load" on cygwin AT sourceware whenever we add a new
>>> package.
>>
>>Now this is a real problem.  But the whole idea, I thought, of the
>>package system was to make it easier to add and maintain additional
>>packages.
>>
>>I wonder if the answer is a series of non-subscribable mailing lists:
>>
>>cygwin-autoconf
>>cygwin-automake
>>etc

>>
>>You got a question about automake on cygwin, send mail to
>>cygwin-automake. The message does NOT get posted immediatly, but is
>>routed to whatever poor fool is supporting automake on cygwin. He/She
>>approves and answers the message, and now that question is archived.
>>
>>This will lead to a LOT of very low-volume mailing lists.
>>
>>When a new or updated package is announced, there will obviously be a
>>lot of immediate discussion on the main cygwin list, but the constant
>>background how-do-I would migrate to the app-specific lists.
>>
>>Good idea? Bad idea? Tremendously stupid idea? Nice idea but would never
>>work in reality?

Don't like that. I think there are enough lists already. I would only
like to see cygwin-apps as an open group like cygwin. (No allowance to
post needed)

>
>I dunno.  I think it would probably be best to just use the existing mailing
>lists for this.  If we start making a mailing list for every cygwin package
>it will get pretty unmanageable.  I'll be spending 90% of my time saying
>"This is off-topic for this mailing list".  :-)
>
>cgf

Michael