Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mksh for MSYS

[Charles W. <cwi...@us...>]

On 11/13/2011 9:57 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> By request, I've packaged mksh for MSYS (and the mksh developers have
> been very pro-active in tweaking mksh for MSYS).  Taking advantage of
> Chuck's mgwport utility, it was easy to modify my mksh cygport for
> msys (thanks Chuck).

That's what it was for; glad it was of use.

> Given how things have been re-organized on FRS,
> I assume this should be part of MSYS/Extension?

I think the key determinant between "Contributed" and "Extension" is 
whether the core MinGW/MSYS team commit to practically perpetual support 
for the package.  This gets a bit tricky when the contributor is *one 
of* the core team...

E.g. if you get hit by a bus, do the rest of us agree that mksh is 
important enough for one of us to continue updating the package?  (It's 
actually possible that a few of the items currently in Extension don't 
meet that test, so maybe it's a bit /too/ stringent.)  I think we'd all 
agree that say, "cvs", "ssh", or "bison" fit the bill, but ...

We're still kindof feeling our way forward on this, so don't take this 
as a "no" -- or a "yes".  I'm really just thinking out loud, here.

> Chuck, what's the policy on the xml manifest files?  Are they to be
> included, like setup.hint in the MSYS_PATCHES directory?

Well, anything that's part of Core or Extension, has the "real" manifest 
maintained in the mingw-dist repo.  I went ahead and added mgwport's 
manifest to its package, too -- but that's probably overkill.  I bet 
that I eventually get tired of maintaining both copies, and remove the 
"internal" one at some point.

For other packages -- Contributed ones -- I don't think we have a 
policy.  Whatever the Contributor wants, I suppose.  Unlike 
cygport+setup.hint and the "dist/" subdirectory, mgwport knows nothing 
about manifest xml files.

--
Chuck