Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
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
Reply-To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20050215194642.03643120@pop.prospeed.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:48:57 -0500
To: Linda W <cygwin AT tlinx DOT org>, "'Cygwin List'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From: Larry Hall <lh-no-personal-replies-please AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?
In-Reply-To: <4212958D.8050302@tlinx.org>
References: <4212958D DOT 8050302 AT tlinx DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:36 PM 2/15/2005, you wrote:
>I can imagine during the early development of cygwin, the rpm
>package types were rather "unsupportable" -- especially on a
>"first install", since no unix shell or coreutils are available.
>
>However, after the basic support is installed, what was the reasoning
>for keeping packages in YAPM (YetAnotherPackageManager).
>
>It seems even a bit more surprising considering Cygwin's early
>roots coming from a RedHat...
>
>Why is the current setup.exe "format" still the preferred format?
>Would it be beneficial to start having the packages moved toward
>rpm format?  It would be useful, at times, to do the equivalent
>of an "rpm -qf <filelist>", or "rpm -qi" for info, etc...Yes,
>one can continue to reinvent the wheel by writing utils that parse
>file lists in /etc/setup, but it seems that would be 'reinventing'
>the wheel for no great purpose...
>
>So I guess I'm curious why Cygwin uses YAPM since RPM has been
>ported?  I'm not looking for any religious debates -- just
>technical/engineering reasons why a different package.  I'm not
>"sold" on the rpm package manager, just wondering why the need
>for creating another format? 
>It's weird -- I tried installing an RPM, and among files that
>were listed as 'missing' were /bin/rm, /bin/sh, /usr/bin/perl
>and libc -- I can see RPM not knowing about the libc package
>name, but the filenames?  I know they're installed, so what's
>the scoop?


There's been plenty of discussion of this so if you're interested in the
details, see the email archives.  In particular, take a look at a recent
thread (within the last couple of months) on the cygwin-apps list 
discussing setup alternatives and RPM.  I think that thread in particular
provides many of the answers you're looking for.


--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/