Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > My question is the usage of "cygport" really required to be used. I > > certainly > Of course it's not required. The maintainer can use any method he > wants. The fact that Chuck switched *to* cygport from the previous > homegrown g-b-s method he used should tell you something about how much > time it can potentially save.
But in the end it apparently didn't save time. There s a learning curve of course. Maybe it'd be helpful to learn for several packages > > feel that it should not be required and it has certainly appeared to hamper > > a lot of progress in maintenance and updates of existing packages. > > You take one instance of one package being delayed and extrapolate that > to some kind of general statement, No extrapolation, just noting that fact that real trade offs are concerned, and its use is not in all cases appropriate or desired. No disrespect to cygports author, intended. > > > It is a tool, best know by its developer, but it is merely a tool and > > should not be a required one. Cygwin already has a specification for > > packages, the only requirement should be that a package meets that > > specification, not how it was accomplished. > > There is no such requirement. The maintainer can do it however he > likes. That's good to know. > ...... Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Build gettext yourself if you want a newer version. This is FOSS, > you're not helpless. > > Brian > Brian, its known at times, that you make really lame statements, but the one above is beneath even you, I thought. Regardless, the new version has already been built and install. A fact you seemed to miss. My concern was for others, another fact that you seemed to and miss. Regards, -- 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/
