Subject: Re: GNU-Win32 distribution question
From: [email-masked] (Christopher Seawood)

11 May 1998 19:27:35 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Geoffrey Noer <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

On Sun, 10 May 1998, Geoffrey Noer wrote:

> Using RPMs would allow easy updating of specific tools which would be
> advantageous.  It would also make it easier for the Net to contribute
> packages.
> 
> Opinions on how/whether to make use of the rpm system for GNU-Win32?

As for how, see the rpm-list archive at http://www.redhat.com/ .  I posted
a few quick patches that make it work well enough and David Fox has
recently posted some more elaborate patches.  The one thing that was
mentioned to me that rpm under 95/NT would need is access to the registry
but that is out of my league.

As for whether, obviously, I'm all for it.  I originally installed rpm to
avoid running into the problem of not knowing where files from a
particular package were installed.   It'd be extremely helpful if the
cygwin32 package itself was distributed in rpm format (not exclusively,
though).  With all of the bugfixes and patches being thrown around the
list, it'd be nice to be able to upgrade a package and know which patches
were applied and when.  It would also help because we could then split up
the cygwin32 distribution into its otherwise separate components.  So
when I grab the latest patches to fix a fd problem in cygwin.dll, I don't
have to recompile all of cygwin32 (binutils, gcc, bison, etc) if I don't
still have the source tree available.

Regards,
Christopher
-----
Software Engineer / Unix Sysadmin / Linux Advocate / Prince Fanatic
http://people.qualcomm.com/cseawood/  

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".