This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: "shouted down", "shot down", apologies
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:15:00PM -0400, John Wiersba wrote:
>The FAQ mentions that
>
>"Normally, this will also attempt to build the documentation, which
>additionally requires db2html, texi2html and possibly others. These tools
>are not included in
>the Cygwin distribution, but are readily obtainable"
>
>Is this still true? texi2html is provided via setup.exe, but db2html is
>not. Can it really be that each contributor has downloaded the source for
>docbook-tools and built it before building the cygwin source?
I build things on linux so I have downloaded this via RPM. I did a google
search and found several references to db2html.
Maybe someone will post a definitive source. You don't need to build the
documentation, though. The makefile will skip this step if it can't build
the docs.
>Back to my original question (building entire cygwin suite from
>source):
>
>As Brian Keener implied in his email, I don't really want to spend a
>huge amount of time just getting setup to successfully build the
>source, before I can even start to contribute. I routinely build perl
>and quite a few GNU packages on AIX, SunOS, HP/UX and linux, but all of
>them build relatively cleanly out-of-the-box with only minor tweaking.
>Since cygwin can be used to build cygwin, what I'm hoping for is that
>the source for cygwin available from setup.exe will also build cleanly
>out-of-the-box.
There is a certain amount of setup available but I really don't advocate
using the cygwin sources from setup.exe for building anything. The
sources change rapidly in CVS so you probably will be automatically out
of date if you use the sources for cygwin 1.3.2.
If you can't use cvs, then the snapshot sources should be adequate. If
you extract the cygwin-src-yyymmdd.tar.bz2 file you should be able to
build.
Other individual packages may be buildable with some tweaking.
>It's certainly should be possible. I won't fault anyone if it's not
>currently in that state, since it may take a reasonable amount of work
>to get it there. But if it's not there yet, then that would be a nice
>goal which would certainly lower the barrier for new contributors. If
>it's already in that state, then it should be a relatively painless
>process to get setup to build a test
I am not sure how useful it is to be able to build the entire cygwin
release from scratch. That sort of goes counter to the new philsophy of
updating individual packages on the fly. I can't see why anyone would
want to build perl and postgres together. I think the chances of
accomplishing this are low.
Although, now that I've said that, I will point out that I have a
/netrel/src directory that looks like this:
binutils-20010425-2 config.sub cygwin-1.3.1-1 gcc-2.95.2-9 inetutils-1.3.2 mpw-install tcltk
bison-1.28-1 configure cygwin-1.3.2-1 gcc-2.95.3-6 install-sh ocygwin-1.1.4 tcltk-20010307-1
bzip2-20001120-1 configure.in cygwin-1.3.3-1 gdb-20010428-1 less-358-3 ogcc termcap-20001216-1
common cygwin-1.1.5-7 dejagnu-20010117-1 grep-2.4.2-1 make-3.79.1-4 sh-utils-2.0-2 texinfo-4.0-4
config-ml.in cygwin-1.1.6-1 expect-20010117-1 groff-1.16.1-1 mfput.log t.c textutils-2.0-2
config.guess cygwin-1.1.7-1 fileutils-4.1-2 gzip-1.3-1 mingw-20010424-1 tar-1.13.18-3 w32api-20010520-1
config.if cygwin-1.1.8-2 flex-2.5.4-1 include.gcc mkinstalldirs tar-1.13.19-1 zsh-4.1.0-dev-0
I also have a 'mknetrel' program that allows you to say:
mknetrel flex
to build flex-2.54-1.
I plan on checking this into a cygwin-apps repository on sources.redhat.com
soon.
This is not a generic "build everything from one makefile" solution but
it does provide a measure of consistency in building packages.
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/