Re: [ITP] Macaulay2 1.1

["Daniel R. Grayson" <dan at math dot uiuc dot edu>]

You must be reading her message differently from the way I did.

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.

> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:56:49 -0600
> From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net>
> To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: [ITP] Macaulay2 1.1
  ...
> 
> On 14 November, Corinna explained[1] that you (or someone else) will
> need to ITP the yet-unpackaged dependencies as well before this can be
> seriously considered.  AFAICS that hasn't happened yet, so I think the
> question of interest is still moot.
> 
> [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2008-11/msg00100.html