X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_YG,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4F8F4A45.8030303@etr-usa.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:12:05 -0600
From:	Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Cygwin-L <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Can RPM packages be installed into Cygwin?
References:	<4F7FEF5B DOT 5060206 AT gmail DOT com> <4F8D066B DOT 2060900 AT tlinx DOT org> <4F8EBDF0 DOT 4080407 AT gmail DOT com> <20120418140309 DOT GC29332 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4F8EE652 DOT 6060203 AT gmail DOT com> <20120418170808 DOT GC30849 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4F8F062A DOT 9030506 AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<4F8F062A.9030506@gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
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 4/18/2012 12:21 PM, De-Jian Zhao wrote:
> Is there a way to export the package info or lib
> info of setup.exe to rpm? If they can share information, the problem
> will be easily solved.

Big "if".

I said it before, but a .src.rpm built for one Linux distribution 
typically will not just recompile as-is on another Linux.  Expecting 
effortless portability to an entirely different platform like Cygwin is 
a pipe dream.

You seem to be envisioning a world where the RPM spec file says it 
requires libfoo-1.2.3.so or whatever, and that someone has ported that 
to Cygwin.  Then all you'd need to do is change RPM so it knows how to 
mung file names to cygfoo-1.2.3.dll or whatever.

That *could* happen.

What actually happens more commonly is:

- The Fedora spec file says it depends on the foo-devel package, which 
contains the .so file in question.

- The SuSE spec file says it depends on the foo-shared-lib package 
instead, because that's what the same package is called there.

- The Repoforge spec file depends on the platform spec file, but also on 
a passel of other infrastructure that has no direct correspondence to 
anything else, and without it it won't even rebuild on supported platforms.

- The third-party spec file which was built to support the first-party 
foo package from the upstream vendor (as opposed to the version in the 
distro) says it depends on the first-party foo-community-shared package.

So, which one should this mythical Cygwin .pkg -> RPM DB tool convert 
the dependencies to?

The first scenario above also ignores versioning issues.

This mythical automatic package porting tool you imagine cannot be 
magicked into existence with a "But if you just..." observation.  There 
is no "just".  It would probably take more work to build the automatic 
dependency translation tool than to just manually port everything.

--
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 -