Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] cygwin/xfree86 setup.exe packages available for comments and testing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:21:01 +1000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Robert Collins" To: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3JNZHs12778 > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:48 AM > >I didn't quite gather from the earlier discussions whether > we can have > >a source package seperate from any binary packages. i.e., could we > >have XFree86-full-src without an associated binary package? > Or would > >we have to make XFree86-base-src the package that contained the full > >source archive. > > Hmm. Yes. I think this would work. That might be the best solution. > > In fact, it may be a nice trend setter. I think setup.exe needs a little work before doing this, but it's a good direction. (i.e. setup.exe should have a view to only show src packages, and a view to only show binaries - to avoid confusing folk). (Think apt-get source vs apt-get install). Rob