Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:59:04 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: for interest: cygwin rpm on sourceforge
Message-ID: <20010330115904.A13240@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <022401c0b8d8$dd089db0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3AC441AF DOT 4479D948 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <3AC441AF.4479D948@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 03:19:59AM -0500

On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 03:19:59AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Robert Collins wrote:
>> 
>> I just noticed that they are doing 1500 downloads a week... not bad. I
>> take this to mean that the cygwinuser base is growing at greater than
>> ~1500/packagecount per week.
>
>Actually, this is terrible.  
> 
>1. Folks using cygwinrpm are installing cygwin stuff *without* using the
>officially approved setup.exe utility.  Yet, you can be guaranteed that
>they will come to *us* asking for help when it breaks, overwrites the
>"official" port of a given package, etc.
>
>2. Many of the packages on cygwinrpm are duplicates (or OLD versions) of
>packages that are now part of the official cygwin tree.  This includes:
>perl, zip, unzip, cpio, readline, automake, ncftp, wget.  Q: "I have
>readline installed.  It's broken" A: Is it the official readline, or did
>you get it somewhere else?"  How often do we ask on the list if someone
>is using the official setup.exe-installed version of a standard package
>-- or do we just *assume* they're using the official version?
>
>This whole deal smacks of pure stubborn-ness.  "I don't like the
>official installation method (even though it was the subject of months
>of debate) so I'm gonna muddy the waters with an rpm distro"  "Even
>though I'm maintaining an rpm of bind for cygwin, I will not contribute
>a binary .tar.gz so that users of the official installation method can
>benefit..."

Is this really the reason for this site?  That's pretty stupid.  I don't
recall ever debating this issue but maybe we should be much less forgiving
of people asking for help when it is obvious that they are using this
package.

I have nothing against what is essentially a fork but forking the project
and then expecting support to occur in the original project is not
very considerate.

cgf