Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 22:25:21 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: setup revisit
Message-ID: <20010323222520.A18513@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <009201c0b373$270a6ee0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323174032 DOT A30954 AT redhat DOT com> <200103232258 DOT RAA03576 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <00af01c0b3f0$e751e200$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <200103232349 DOT SAA03971 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <021801c0b3fb$97ff2d60$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323204621 DOT B17066 AT redhat DOT com> <02ec01c0b406$6e3822b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323210835 DOT F17066 AT redhat DOT com> <031101c0b411$3f9cd3a0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <031101c0b411$3f9cd3a0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 02:19:32PM +1100

On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 02:19:32PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> You do have to say this when you are installing the cygwin package.
>> Other packages are unaffected.  With the old installer any
>installation
>> (gcc, bash, ncurses, etc.) was affected by the cygwin conflict.
>
>Oh. That wouldn't have affected what I was suggesting (the current
>cygwin1.dll would be used unless an update was present - in which case
>it comes back to the current setup's behaviour.).

And if the current cygwin1.dll is B20?  Do you want to rely on that?
Or if it is a buggy snapshot?

>> >True.  I was hoping to put my nose down and hack all weekend, but it
>> >looks like rpm is *not* going to play nice so I'll give it a slightly
>> >lower priority for now.
>>
>> Don't let me discourage you though, Robert.  If you can get this done,
>> it will be pretty cool.  Doesn't RPM have a library like interface,
>too?
>>
>
>I'm lookinginto that. The RPM issue I'm fighting with currently is
>porting sleepycat's db to raw win32 as a static library. (It doesn't
>build with gcc unless you build it for cygwin :[).
>
>Once that's out of the way I can actually try to build rpm natively.

The last I remember, rpm needed chroot() to function.  That's why I
asked Corinna to implement this in Cygwin.

cgf