From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2009-06-27 18:33:14
|
On Friday 26 June 2009 18:42:28 Earnie Boyd wrote: > > *-mingw32-* were configured using --prefix=/mingw (or, in many > > cases, --prefix=`cd /mingw && pwd -W`. This > > formulation should always resolve to C:\MinGW for official MinGW > > packages). Thus, the subsys indicates the expected directory in > > which the package should be installed: C:\MinGW > > I agree. Sorry; while I see the logic behind this suggestion, I respectfully *disagree*. I consider it utterly arcane that a package such as autoconf, which is 100% dependent on MSYS to do anything even remotely useful, should be touted as a MinGW package. There are many users, who do not use MSYS, (and who may not wish to use it), and who will expect any package branded as *-mingw32-* to offer at least a *primary* deliverable which does *not* require MSYS; autoconf and friends can never meet this criterion. While we offer packages intended for *three* distinct "user lands", I don't see how we can expect to achieve the mathematically impossible feat of describing them with only two unique identifiers; we *need* an additional unique subsystem identifier, for those packages which are specifically intended for exclusive use in "MSYS Developer land"; IMO, *-msys-* cannot suffice for that. On Friday 26 June 2009 21:47:50 Charles Wilson wrote: > So, for *official* packages...we need *policy*. Yes, we need policy, but it needs to be *rational* policy; I don't think we are yet at a point of consensus, where we can formulate any such policy. -- Regards, Keith. |