[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: get the project officially started

> I personally don't have much desire nor time to play advocacy
> games.  If I had wanted to do that, I would have been a lawyer.
> On the other hand, I do have an issue that I would like to see 
> resolved fairly quickly.  It seems to me that the w32 designation
> is a bit broad or limited, depending on which side of the handle
> you are looking at it from.  I also think that ix86 is in the same
> problem.  We have how many OSs that run on Intel's hardware?
> I see that someone want's to start a ix86/solaris port.  
> And, to me, there is a pretty large difference between a cygwin
> port of debian packages, and a native Wintel port, both of which
> could qualify for w32.  I'm thinking that I may have to repackage
> dpkg, (and eventually apt), and use a cyg nomenclature, instead
> of w32.  But, that presents problems, if someone ports cygwin to
> someother architecture, say NT on Risc, or somesuch animal.
> Basically, we need more granularity in our package naming conventions,
> it seems to me.

How about using an example that has already been accepted by many people:


Would seem to me that perhaps cygwin-i386 would be appropriate.

If no os is listed, the os is assumed to be linux in the case of Debian
tools.  If it s not Linux, specify it, and then put a dash and then the
hardware architecture.  I think considering cygwin an OS as far as the
packages are concerned, seems fair.  This leaves room for mingw-i386,
and various other win32 ports should such things ever occour.  And a
native one could perhaps be mswin-i386, or something similar.

Does that make any sense and seem to follow current convensions of Debian
for naming ports?  I imagine a Debian package system for FreeBSD would
become freebsd-i386.  Why treat win32/x86 any differently?

Len Sorensen

Reply to: