Haibin Zhang wrote, quoting me:
>> As Earnie and I have both pointed out, it's your monolithic
>> packaging format that we object to, not what you provide in
>> your package. Any user who needs those latest versions of
>> the autotools, or gettext, will be well capable of updating
>> their own installations, using our mingwPORTs.
> This is a temporary schema, If I have time, I will package it
> as cygwin install.exe. so that many people can upgrade mingw
> as cygwin.
I hope you mean "like cygwin", rather than "as cygwin"; I don't
think the Cygwin folks will be too enamoured of you trying to
replace a Cygwin install with a MinGW rip-off. Nor will we be
best pleased, if upgrading a MinGW installation turns it into
Cygwin. (That aside, there is already significant co-operation
between the Cygwin and MinGW projects).
>> If you *really* want to assist those users who you say need
>> your package, then why not offer them an even better service,
>> by helping us to keep the appropriate mingwPORTs up to date,
>> instead of creating yet another software distribution?
> I think that if you spend much time to update mingwPORTS, maybe
> you can create a intall.exe like cygwin. Sorry, maybe I am wrong,
> maybe I don't understand mingwPORTS.
We like the mingwPORT concept, because it allows users to select
those packages they want/need, download the PORT file, and run
`mingwPORT.sh' to handle the details of downloading, building
and installing the required package, while also optimising it to
best fit their own system configuration.
In many respects, each mingwPORT is like a mini installer, with
each one dedicated to its own optional add-on package for a MinGW
or MSYS system. Certainly, there isn't currently any single
integrated installer, which can handle both a basic MinGW
installation, and also manage the optional add-ons. It would be
nice to offer one, but that needs development effort, which in
turn needs time, and that is a scarce commodity. That would
appear to be your goal, but isn't your effort misdirected?
Instead of impatiently going it alone, wouldn't you be better
working *with* us, to achieve that goal? Together we could
achieve so much more than we can each produce independently.
I have no issue with letting you join the MinGW Developer Team,
and allowing you to participate in development discussions.
We already have a couple of developers, with an interest in
installers; why not share your ideas with them? But please,
show some patience; you must give us an opportunity to review
your work, *before* we adopt it into MinGW, or give you carte
blanche to upload to our project pages.