Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:08:31 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: which which
Message-ID: <20020102200831.GA20275@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <NLEGIGLCGEEOHJGJBGPOMEHPCJAA DOT john DOT r DOT morrison AT ntlworld DOT com> <002701c193c3$893a7520$a300a8c0 AT nhv>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <002701c193c3$893a7520$a300a8c0@nhv>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 02:27:35PM -0500, Norman Vine wrote:
>John Morrison writes:
>
>>Maybe all the packages ought to state where they originated?
>
>FWIW this often helps :-)
>
>% package --version 
>
>Should support for this be a requirement for all Cygwin packages ?
>AFAIK it is for gnu applications

We're not going to require that people modify non-GNU packages to adhere
to GNU conventions.

Possibly we should have this as a requirement for new packages, though.

FWIW, Cygwin is not a GNU project.  There is no reason to believe that
every package it provides is a GNU package.  And, I don't see any reason
to add flashing "not a GNU package" to the packages that don't come from
ftp.gnu.org.

cgf