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
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: perl-5.6.0 ready for test! (IMPORTANT READ THIS MESSAGE ON MAINTAINER STATUS!)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:39:46 +1000
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4368.4
Message-ID: <8600BF007197944F8DD3906E40CB428005D83C@itdomain001.itdomain.net.au>
Thread-Topic: perl-5.6.0 ready for test! (IMPORTANT READ THIS MESSAGE ON MAINTAINER STATUS!)
Thread-Index: AcAMgCCwFEQ8K5q9StWumQluGPpXDwAGiaTA
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>,
        <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id UAA30865

The set of mailing lists sounds almost like a set of FAQ's - maintained
by one person per FAQ...

Perhaps a set of FAQ's and a matching set of mail alias's 
ie PERL-CYGWIN FAQ hanging off the existing FAQ at the index, and 
perl-cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com - goes to the perl maintainer, and they
/dev/null or update the FAQ as appropriate.

I think separating support for the application issues from the "kernel"
or portability layer is a very good idea.

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2000 4:14 AM
> 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!)
> 
> 
> Chris Faylor wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 05:08:10AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> > >--- Michael Ring <Michael DOT Ring AT t-mobil DOT de> wrote:
> > >> perl-5.6.0 is perl period ;-)
> > >>
> > >-8<-
> > >>
> > >> PACKAGING STATUS:
> > >>
> > >> When tested this package should go nowhere (or perhaps 
> contrib) version 5.6.1
> > >> should go to contrib
> > >>
> > >
> > >IMHO, automake, autoconf, libtool and perl should be a 
> part of the base package
> > >and therefore should go to the latest directory and not to 
> the contrib
> > >directory.  Perl is required by the other three and 
> automake, autoconf and
> > >libtool [are|have] becom[ing|e] a de facto standard.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> --Chuck
>