I must admit that this line of discussion makes me a little nervous. If you basically mean ditching the Cygwin Setup.exe and redistributing all of the Cygwin apps yourselves, I can see where you're coming from. If instead you mean not using Cygwin or their existing ports, instead deciding to do native windows apps, that's cool too, but IMHO a very different project. I'm all for having somebody collect together various Win32 ports in a central, convenient, easy to use way. But I think that this mailing list is for Debian/Cygwin (or whatever name finally gets decided on). I think the first order of business is getting apt-get going and making packages available under Cygwin. Once there are a "sufficient" number of packages available (tbd), then we start looking into the whole testing/unstable/stable thing and making our own installer. Hopefully, the whole time giving as much intelligent, useful feedback to the Cygwin team as we can--both groups should mutually benefit from each other. That's my 2 cents.
Augustus James Mastros wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Mark Paulus wrote:First off, we need to decide how we are going to cohabitate/exist with cygwin's setup application.- Do we only provide applications that aren't provided by setup? - Do we provide all applications? - Do we provide replace/provide some that aren't covered by setup?I'm all for being independent of Cygwin, as far as possible. The beuaty of Debian is all (OK, mostly) in the ease-of-use of it's installer/upgrader (I want an "I <heart> apt-get" bumper-stiker.) If we decide to be a shell of cygwin, this gets lost, which would be an amazing shame. It will also, BTW, pretty much make us a wierd debian/cygwin hybrid, and not Debian for W[in]32. If we did that, /I/ certianly wouldn't want us to be made an offical port. Don't get me wrong -- I think the cygwin project is great, and that the work they've done will almost certianly help us in our quest. I just want to see us using their code, and not vice-versa. -=- James Mastros