> I also know that build-depends is a real headache for Red Hat package > maintainers so I'm not in a hurry to foist that extra bookkeeping > headache on cygwin maintainers. It's moderate effort for small > gain given that there are other more important things that could > be done with and to setup.exe. > > However, if you are building the whole package, then why not just > download... the whole package?
well, I need to know which ones to *build* first, and which order to build them.. Like I said I want to do it with as few deps as possible, if possible just g++ and make, and shell. As for the reason *why* I'm doing this from scratch, well, it gives me freedom to encorporate packages that aren't technically 'cygwin' packages, host patches that may or may not become part of a standard distributions, and build - or attempt to build - via other compilers and linkers. > >I'm assuming that these correspond to the -src.tar.bz2 pcakages inside > >of the repository, and each one of these has . However there are > >makefiles which coordinate the build, above these directories (at level > >winsup). I'm assuming that these aren't part of any package that is > >distributed. I could be wrong. > > Could be, and are. There is no need to speculate when simple inspection > of the source tarballs and of the CVS repository would show you how > things are laid out. There is no need to assume that things are broken > rather than working. ok, I misread. 'cygrunsrv' for cygsrv, assumed 'cygwin' == cygwin, mingw-runtime == mingw, etc. In order to do a 'simple inspection' I would need to download these all. I thought it'd be simpler to ask. anyways, I'll plow through it and see what happens. Ed -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
