From: spolk AT cygnus DOT com (Syd Polk)
Subject: Re: cygwin32-developers problems?
10 Mar 1998 13:29:22 -0800
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980310125726.00a3cac0.cygnus.cygwin32.developers@pop.cygnus.com>
References: <199803102033 DOT PAA05281 AT hardy DOT bbc DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT bbc DOT com>, tromey AT cygnus DOT com
Cc: cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com

At 03:33 PM 3/10/98 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>From: Tom Tromey <tromey AT creche DOT cygnus DOT com>
>>Date: 10 Mar 1998 13:23:16 -0700
>>
>>Christopher> You could modify the installation procedure so that there
>>Christopher> were three (or more?) packages.  A "base" package, a
>>Christopher> "developers" package, a "users" package.  This is nearly
>>Christopher> what is done now, but you could also allow click and
>>Christopher> choose installation of specific packages.
>>
>>Why stop there?
>>Why not just use packages, like Debian or Red Hat?
>>In fact, isn't there already some initiative to do something like this
>>(host Debian on top of Cygwin)?
>
>There was some discussion about that in the mailing list a while ago.
>
>I'm not familiar with the way those packages work under Windows.  Would
>they have the "look and feel" that is requisite for Windows installers?
>Or, if that is not an issue then, I agree that this would be the way to go.
>No need to reinvent the wheel...
>--
>http://www.bbc.com/	cgf AT bbc DOT com			"Strange how unreal
>VMS=>UNIX Solutions	Boston Business Computing	 the real can be."
>
>

"Packages"? What are they? There is no concept of a "package" in Windows.
People use InstallShield or Wyse to create installers and they install. The
base installers are not at all intelligent and the more sophisticated ones
are.


Syd Polk - spolk AT cygnus DOT com
Cygnus Solutions
(408)543-9430