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 Message-ID: <3AC4D57E.193B418E@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:50:38 -0500 From: Charles Wilson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: for interest: cygwin rpm on sourceforge References: <022401c0b8d8$dd089db0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3AC441AF DOT 4479D948 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010330115904 DOT A13240 AT redhat DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Faylor wrote: > >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..." This is probably an over-reaction on my part. In some respects, RUE Satoh's rpm stuff and the Project Heavymoon thing *predate* the cygwin setup.exe. However, without a fully native port of rpm you can't use rpm stuff to "bootstrap" an install. We wanted a windows program (non-cygwin-based) that could be used to install cygwin onto a cygwin-less system; thus, setup.exe was born -- and rpm packaging was rejected (at least for the time being). The various RPM sites require you to already have a working cygwin installation before you can add their rpm-packaged extras. My main complaint is that these sites don't keep current with what is/has been moved into the official distro. For instance, when "zip" was added to the official distro, I moved the "zip" package on the CygUtils site to the "obsolete" page. These rpm sites do not do that -- they continue to distribute old conflicting versions of various packages. Yuck. > > 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. I don't believe the rpm distributors intend for cygwin AT cygwin DOT com to provide support. It's just that the rpm users believe that cygwin@ is THE source for ALL support. (vis. the message this morning concerning sunrpc/rpcgen). --Chuck