From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2013-09-16 21:44:11
|
On 16/09/13 21:01, Sebastian Schuberth wrote: > My real point is that I'm a little bit disappointed that the MinGW > project is promoting mgwport as the "revolutionary new method for > building and maintaining packages for the MinGW/MSYS offerings" [1], In what way, exactly, can a reference on gitorious.org, which has absolutely no affinity whatsoever for MinGW.org, be construed as MinGW.org (the official home of the MinGW Project) promoting this? > and I've spend quite some time to learn how mgwport files work I sympathize; you have been misled. Had you researched the MinGW-dvlpr archives, you might have noted my fundamental objections to mgwport. > in order to build and provide several packages, just to see that the > MinGW project members create the same packages without mgwport. Which is perfectly reasonable, since... > I just want to a) avoid duplicate work and b) get a definite answer > on whether mgwport files are now the way to go for building packages > files, ...it is absolutely no such thing; in it's present form it is the failed first development effort, which should be thrown away to start over again; (cf. ESR -- "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"). > or what else. Anything you find convenient, provided it allows one to simply: $ mingw-get source foo $ cd foo-<version> $ ./configure $ make > [1] https://gitorious.org/mgwport/mgwport/source/98324ce183c0922124ef09a9c481ed30d03456ad:README -- Regards, Keith. |