Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:36:25 -0500 To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Net release status? Message-ID: <20000311103625.C13328@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com References: <20000308211013 DOT A29300 AT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.8i In-Reply-To: ; from fujieda@jaist.ac.jp on Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 05:35:36PM +0900 On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 05:35:36PM +0900, Kazuhiro Fujieda wrote: >>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:10:13 -0500 >>>> Chris Faylor said: > >> Have all of the toolchain directory issues been worked out? > >I understand all executable binaries should be stored in >`usr/bin' according to the discussion about the directory >structure. The goal was to make /usr/bin == /bin, actually. >`cygwin' package has been repackaged according to the >discussion. But other packages (except for the packages having >no need to be repackaged, such as `gcc', `gdb', and `binutils') >are leaved alone. > >DJ, can you repackage these packages ? It shouldn't be necessary, given the above. This will have to be handled in the installer, though, and I believe that we concluded that a mount entry will be required. cgf