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)" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > 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
