Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/03/30/12:21:18
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 03:19:59AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>> I just noticed that they are doing 1500 downloads a week... not bad. I
>> take this to mean that the cygwinuser base is growing at greater than
>> ~1500/packagecount per week.
>
>Actually, this is terrible.
>
>1. Folks using cygwinrpm are installing cygwin stuff *without* using the
>officially approved setup.exe utility. Yet, you can be guaranteed that
>they will come to *us* asking for help when it breaks, overwrites the
>"official" port of a given package, etc.
>
>2. Many of the packages on cygwinrpm are duplicates (or OLD versions) of
>packages that are now part of the official cygwin tree. This includes:
>perl, zip, unzip, cpio, readline, automake, ncftp, wget. Q: "I have
>readline installed. It's broken" A: Is it the official readline, or did
>you get it somewhere else?" How often do we ask on the list if someone
>is using the official setup.exe-installed version of a standard package
>-- or do we just *assume* they're using the official version?
>
>This whole deal smacks of pure stubborn-ness. "I don't like the
>official installation method (even though it was the subject of months
>of debate) so I'm gonna muddy the waters with an rpm distro" "Even
>though I'm maintaining an rpm of bind for cygwin, I will not contribute
>a binary .tar.gz so that users of the official installation method can
>benefit..."
Is this really the reason for this site? That's pretty stupid. I don't
recall ever debating this issue but maybe we should be much less forgiving
of people asking for help when it is obvious that they are using this
package.
I have nothing against what is essentially a fork but forking the project
and then expecting support to occur in the original project is not
very considerate.
cgf
- Raw text -