Re: Remove cinstall src directory from snapshots

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul G." <pgarceau@qwest.net>
> > >I don't think so, there's no reason that the source for utils isn't
> > >cygwin-1.5.3-1-src.tar.bz2.
> >
> > I thought of that but then I'd have to release a version of cygwin
sources
> > with winsup/utils that  had no relationship to the net release.
Maybe that's
> > not a problem.  You don't think we'd have people trying to build
cygwin itself
> > from these sources?

...

> Whether it was due to inexperience with building setup.exe or due to
something else, I ended up resorting to a
> complete rebuild of cygwin1.dll before setup.exe would even begin to
link properly (second run).  It still failed on second
> run.  By that point, however, I had a very good idea of what was
needed before a so-called "clean" build of Setup.exe could
> be generated.

Hmm, do you have those logs by any chance? 'All' setup.exe needs is
w32api, mingw, zlib and libbz2

> So, to address the query cgf presented, the possibility is definitely
there that someone may attempt to rebuild all
> of Cygwin from nothing but the winsup/utils.  We already know that
Setup.exe has a certain dependency, in its current
> form, on cygwin1.dll as well as several other utilities (bash, bz2,
zlib, etc.) that may or may not be included as part of a
> winsup/utils source collection.

Actually, setup.exe is a mingw app, not a cygwin app, so having no
cygwin source should be fine.

Anyway, I'm personally in favour of pointing folk at CVS, at least for
the immediate future, as its
a) simple for us.
b) GPL compliant (folk who get the binary can get the source at the same
time)
c) can be changed in the future with no ill effect.

And unlike cygwin, there's little reason for folk to want a custom
version of setup. Indeed, if they have such, then chances are they have
the nounce to manage the source themselves.

Rob