X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4AEE6165.40103@cygwin.com>
Date:	Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:34:45 -0500
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090320 Remi/2.0.0.21-1.fc8.remi Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Parallel downloading of Cygwin packages
References:	<4AEAD9EE DOT 4010009 AT gamr7 DOT com> <20091030125852 DOT GB1361 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4AEBA0D2 DOT 5060001 AT gmail DOT com> <20091031024002 DOT GA19570 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4AEBBED1 DOT 6070802 AT gmail DOT com> <20091031152025 DOT GA22041 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4AEE510F DOT 3050707 AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<4AEE510F.3050707@gmail.com>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

On 11/01/2009 10:25 PM, Chris Cormie wrote:
>> There are barriers to implementing rpm in Cygwin, the most frequently
>> mentioned being the fact that a cygwin process can't easily replace
>> cygwin1.dll or any other running executables.
>
> If the in-Cygwin package manager can't update core Cygwin, that's not a
> deal breaker IMO: there is a fair bit of useful app package management
> that can be done without changing the core.

Sure but the value of package manager that can't do this mitigates its general
usefulness and adds to the "confusion" factor for people 
installing/updating/removing,
etc.  Given the number of postings on this list which stem from confusion about
the operation of 'setup.exe', the importance of this factor shouldn't be 
underestimated.

> As for running executables -- well, perhaps this is more of my ignorance
> :) but couldn't a well behaved package close down running services in
> the preremove script? (In the case the package was being upgraded.)

Sure but it is another issue where lack of symmetry is likely to cause problems.
Those used to using rpm or other package managers on platforms where this is
not a strict requirement for upgrading packages will likely be confused or 
annoyed
by the Cygwin's requirement for this.  This, I believe, is less of a crucial 
issue
than the one above.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

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

- Raw text -