Re: [ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

[Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>]

Smith, Martin wrote:

> *       What about text/binary mounts - I get the feeling binary mounts are
> preferred for most applications but, by default, the Cygnus tools install
> with text mounts. Is it wise to change this to binary for a 'development'
> install or not?

I'm not quite sure about that. Personaly I prefer text mounts for
development reasons, but I would like to hear some statements from the
core developers towards this item.

> *       What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bash directly. Is
> this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is there any
> "best" environment?

I suppose the env vars will be set in a global .bashrc or .profile file
started with bash.

> *       Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using any form
> of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?

Of course it would be usefull, but we will stick to tarball mechanisms
here for the beginning, I suppose.

> *       Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have been a
> few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.

Hopefully yes, at least for those available and integratable for the
whole environment.

> *       Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> provided by Cygwin?

I suppose yes.

> *       It would be handy if it could (eventually) offer to set inetutils up
> for you as well (as an NT service if you are on NT). Don't know how feasible
> this one is...

inetutils will be part of the software package, but I'm not aware if it
should initialize and run automaticly after installation.

> *       Of course, using InstallShield, you could offer some of these as
> options under "Custom" setup.

yep.

> Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion and think
> it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running with the
> Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session first :-)
> If you need a Beta tester for any of this, let me know ;-)

noted this.

Regards,
Stipe

-- 
Stipe Tolj <tolj@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Cygwin Porting Project
Department of Economical Computer Science        
University of Cologne, Germany                  
http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~tolj



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com