Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] mingw-examples [WAS: MinGWutils, mingw-utils or something else?]

[Earnie B. <ear...@ya...>]

"Steve D. Perkins" wrote:
> 
> > Yes, good idea.  Then all of the examples and how to documentation could
> > go to that package.  Jose` has GNU documentation converted to CMH/HLP
> > should that be a part of mingw-examples, mingw-utils or mingw-gnudoc?
> 
>     Wow, let's pause to catch our breath here... everytime I check my email
> over the past 24 hours, there's a new MinGW subpackage on the drawing board
> and about to go in production!  A few brief thoughts/questions:
> 
> - Are we talking about organizing all MinGW materials into some appropriate
> subpackage... or will "make", "binutils", and so forth continue to float out
> there as "loose cannon packages"?  If the former approach is used, which
> "mingw-XXX" package(s) would these loose items get rolled into?
> 

To smoothly accomplish this a top-level directory containing each
package with proper autoconfiguration to build the subdirectories would
be needed.  Yes, doable and advisable.

> - Does it really make sense to have a subpackage as specific as
> "mingw-gnudoc", when work is underway on MinGW-specific documentation?
> Perhaps it would be advisable to broaden this subpackage's scope (i.e.
> "mingw-doc") and have it include general GNU as well as MinGW-specific
> documentation?
> 

Good point.  A name such as mingw-doc would be better served.

> - There was some conversation a couple of weeks ago about the practicality
> of individual maintainer(s) being responsible for managing all
> production-released changes to each particular subpackage.  Was any
> resolution ever reached with this?  What effect (if any) will these
> packaging changes have on how development in organized and managed?
> 

Well, I agreed to write up a standards specification for contributed
packages.  I've not had the round tuits due to a major migration that
I've been working since June '01 and finally implemented.  Hopefully by
the end of March.  I think we've proven that having one individual as a
release manager isn't really doable.  We'll just have to keep each other
in check.

> - I keep referring to these subpackages as "SUB"-packages, because I have
> this vision in my head of the main "MinGW" release being a glued-together
> composite of all the subpackage snapshots taken at the time of release.  Is
> that vision in sync with what others are thinking... or are we thinking
> about going back to the model where users install MinGW by just downloading
> all the latest individual packages they're interested in... or will the main
> "MinGW" release be some separate entity/concept (i.e. a glued together
> composite of only certain "required" subpackages)?
> 

Yes, but the subpackage release is good for those who want to update
only that package.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com