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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:57:09 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: setup wishes -- any volunteers Message-ID: <20010322195709.F20261@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: ; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:44:39AM +1100 On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:44:39AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >I don't understand this (as both formats are GPL'd AFAIK) but I'm not in >the mood for bucking corporate reality just now... what RPM resources >are available at RedHat that might make my efforts on this easier? >(Read: I'm willing to try RPM, just not as enthusiastic). Dunno. I just don't want to be in a meeting where someone mentions the Cygwin setup utility and asks what package format it uses. I could probably defend it by stating that it was contributed by a dedicated, selfless net contributor but I'd rather not have to. Obviously dpkg is seen as a "competitor" to rpm and rpm is a Red Hat format, so... This is one of those rare times where the fact that Cygwin is a corporate-sponsored entity makes a difference. The last time it made a difference was where I was forced to delay a new net release for almost a year and a half for various silly reasons. cgf