Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:36:01 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: setup package format v. rpm, reasoning? Message-ID: <20050216013601.GA18715@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4212958D DOT 8050302 AT tlinx DOT org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4212958D.8050302@tlinx.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0800, Linda W 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... Cygwin's early roots did not come from Red Hat. They came from Cygnus. That's what the "Cyg" stands for. cgf -- 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/