From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30879 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2001 22:43:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30829 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 22:43:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 22:43:39 -0000 Received: from loony.cygnus.com (loony.cygnus.com [205.180.230.181]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08156 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cgf@localhost) by loony.cygnus.com (8.11.6/8.8.7) id fAEMhZ910489 for cygwin@cygwin.com; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:43:35 -0500 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:26:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: no more package moratorium? Message-ID: <20011114224335.GA10472@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <007f01c16cde$5016de20$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <20011114124323.C24614@cygbert.vinschen.de> <049601c16d58$d8565250$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <049601c16d58$d8565250$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 09:08:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Corinna Vinschen" >> - cygwin-developers discusses if the package should become part of >> the distro and chooses a person from cygwin-developers as approver. > >Nope. I don't think this is appropriate. cygwin-developers is for >developers of cygwin1.dll. Last I heard, Linus has no input into what >Redhat put into the (say) the RawHide distro, so why should the >cygwin1.dll developers care what goes into 'cygwin the net >distribution'. Yep. >I think we should either get a consensus from all the package >maintainers, or perhaps, wait 3 days for objections. If no objections, >then the package is allowed in. If there are objections, discuss until >resolved. To prevent deadlock, a single individual objecting will not >cause a package to be rejected, the objections must be agreed with by >other package maintainers. As long as I get veto power or whatever the opposite of veto power, that's fine with me. I'm not exactly Linus in this situation, I guess. I'm not sure that we really need to be this formal, though. Who's going to be doing the tracking? Once again, it sounds like another job for a script. :-) cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/