Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/05/26/18:03:09
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Wourms [mailto:nwourms AT yahoo DOT com]
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 5:12 AM
> To: Robert Collins; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: RE: Setup as recommended reading
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Before you do bow out, I think people need to realize, as it
> was stated before, that you are not trying to reinvent the
> wheel. Yes, RPM is great for many things, but the goal of
> setup isn't to be rpm. In fact, IIRC it was stated that once
> someone had volunteered to support rpm for Cygwin and it was
> proved stable, there might be some discussion as to making
> setup.exe based on the rpm api. There has been some
> discussion lately regarding this port and I believe someone
> has even volunteered to do it.
Yes. In fact both rpm and have been -partially- ported to cygwin. AFAIK
neither has been converted to deal with in-use-file-replacements, which
is a required capability to be a cygwin-linked installer (for somewhat
obvious reasons).
> Be that as it may, it will still be much time before this is
> implimented, IF it is implemented. So let Rob actually
> perfect what he has before asking for heaps of new features.
> IMHO, setup seems to be working nicely for the most part,
> minus a few bugs here and there. I honestly think there are
> more critical issues to focus on then the "fluff" of UI, such
> as getting a fast, stable SysV IPC system integrated into
> cygwin and releasing an updated binutils with better dynamic
> library capabilities.
> Feel free to disagree....
The installer is fairly complete. Howeever I really want to make it easy
for maintainers, so allowing the use of the debian build tools, or the
rpm build tools is a high priority. Otherwise the maintainers here will,
by necessity, end up inventing the wheel.
Rob
--
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/
- Raw text -