Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/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
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: ronald owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:04:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <ronald AT landheer DOT com>
X-X-Sender: ronald AT localhost DOT localdomain
To: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available
In-Reply-To: <b60hmb$9lo$1@main.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303281058280.5079-100000@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from
>> Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
> And mine wasn't the first.
I aired my concern not at the thought of having a port of RPM - I know 
there's been one around for ages - but at the thought of using it as a 
Setup-replacement: I replied to the first paragraph written by Shankar 
Unni  in message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg01844.html:

> The real benefit to porting RPM or apt-get or whatever to Windows is as
> a possible replacement for the current installation system (if anyone
> considers RPM, and its associated GUIs, an improvement, that is).

To which I replied with:

> I can see it now:
> "I downloaded the abcdef RPM from my local LUG mirror and it didn't work 
> - why?"
> .. umm.. Linux executable?

> I really think it is a Good Thing to have a Windows application that has
> no equivalent under *NIX take care of Cygwin installation - only a few
> days ago someone tried to run what he called a "Standard Binary" (i.e. a
> Linux executable) under Cygwin and I'm *sure* that will happen a *lot*
> more often if we use one of the more-or-less standard installers from
> Linux distributions to install our stuff..

Since then, I've been repeating that I think having a Cygwin port of RPM 
is a Good Thing, as long as nobody tries to replace Setup with it.

and to quote Forrest Gump: ".. and that's all I have to say about that .."

rlc



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/