From: noer AT cygnus DOT com (Geoffrey Noer)
Subject: Re: CD-based distribution (was Another website....)
13 Aug 1998 17:11:37 -0700
Message-ID: <19980813075556.C12323.cygnus.gnu-win32@cygnus.com>
References: <C0B7E1B3BE9CD111B6F000A0246DBB9B16EF AT softech DOT mke DOT etn DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: Marcus Brown <Brown AT sw DOT mke DOT etn DOT com>, Robert Read <rread AT datarithm DOT com>
Cc: Robert DOT Cross AT scottish-newcastle DOT co DOT uk, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

On Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 01:49:44PM -0500, Marcus Brown wrote:
>
> Well, I couldn't really say anything about the Debian tools since I've
> never used the Debian distribution, only RedHat and Slackware.  The rpm
> port to cygwin32 that I have seen is solid, and works fine with source
> rpms (haven't tried binary so don't quote me on this :).  If there is a
> better or more convenient way to package distributions I'd be glad to
> take a look at it, rpm is the first thing that came to mind.  A more
> pressing issue would seem to be what would actually be included in this
> distribution...

In principle, I would prefer InstallShield-based distributions but
obviously that causes a lot of problems -- it's proprietary and isn't
very scalable to 100s of packages.  So maybe rpm is the way to go...

Overall, I think it is best if the system promotes compatibility with
Windows.  (We'd all be much better off running Linux if all we wanted
was a UNIX box).  If there is a good way to package things that is
more in keeping with normal Windows ways of existance other than
Installshield that might be a better choice.  Dunno.

-- 
Geoffrey Noer
noer AT cygnus DOT com
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".