Re: [ITP] Macaulay2 1.1

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>]

On Jan  7 19:42, Daniel R. Grayson wrote:
> You must be reading her message differently from the way I did.

Yaakov got the message basically right.  I used the gc package as an
unfortunate example but this doesn't invalidate the fact that it would
be much more feasible to have the extra libs your package depends upon
as distinct Cygwin packages.  I explained why, and you would certainly
not be the first one who would pack extra packages which your main
package depends upon.

> In any case, if it were to turn out that Macaulay 2 were interesting to cygwin,
> but one of the libraries Macaulay 2 depends on was not interesting to cygwin,
> then I wouldn't have to package that library, would I?  I could just include
> the source for it in the Macaulay 2 package.  Otherwise it's a catch-22.
> 
> So I think the question of whether ITP's for the dependent packages would
> succeed on their own merits is moot.

Not really.  Here's the list of packages you talked about:

  gc               - already available.
  ntl              - Packed in Fedora, Cygwin package only needs GTG.
  singular-factory - Didn't find that one, but...
  singular-libfac  - Is packed in Fedora, only GTG needed.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat