Message-Id:	<200502160440.j1G4eY32028277@delorie.com>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?
Date:	Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:38:21 -0600
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20050216013601.GA18715@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com 
> [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:36 PM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?
> 
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0800, Linda W wrote:
> >I can imagine during the early development of cygwin, the 
> rpm package 
> >types were rather "unsupportable" -- especially on a "first 
> install", 
> >since no unix shell or coreutils are available.
> >
> >However, after the basic support is installed, what was the 
> reasoning 
> >for keeping packages in YAPM (YetAnotherPackageManager).
> >
> >It seems even a bit more surprising considering Cygwin's early roots 
> >coming from a RedHat...
> 
> Cygwin's early roots did not come from Red Hat.  They came 
> from Cygnus.  That's what the "Cyg" stands for.

And here all along I thought it had something to do with cigarettes.

;-)

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -