Re: get the project officially started
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:38:11AM -0700, Mark Paulus wrote:
> 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 simply think it's a bit nonstandard, and that win32 would be better. But
that's a whole nother can of worms.
> 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.
Right. Personaly, I'd tend to say that a cygwin port of a package should be
in architecture win32-i386, and depend on libcygwin. A native port should
be in architecture win32-i386, and should not depend on libcygwin.
(Acatualy, I'd tend to say that they should both be in architecture i386,
and the native port should depend on libkernel32, but now we're getting a
little wierd.)
> Basically, we need more granularity in our package naming conventions,
> it seems to me.
Debianites in general have been worrying about that for quite a bit, since
the Hurd port made i386 ambiguous.
-=- James Mastros
--
God has both Tea and No Tea. -=- SLM
Reply to: