Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:38:33 -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: <20010322193833.C20261@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps 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 10:09:11AM +1100 On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 10:09:11AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com] >> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 9:52 AM >> To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com; cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com >> Subject: Re: setup wishes -- any volunteers >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 09:27:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >> >I know this has been said before, but what about leveraging of an >> >existing packaging format - dpkg has all the capabilities >> you cite, and >> >they had a win32 project in place at one time. I'mm willing >> to polish my >> >elbows this weekend and see if I can make something work : >> but first I >> >would like a little buy-in that this is a good route to take. >> >> This gives you dependencies but I don't see that it provides you with >> anything else. > >the debian format does nested dependencies based on features (ie vi >requires curses, curses is supplied by ncurses, multi sources of >features - ncurses provides termcap, as does terminfo (yes I know these >aren't accurate :]). It has _many_ existing retrieval tools & formats >(http/ftp/file system/nfs/even rsync I think) and a build environment to >build the packages. (Oh, and a pretty wide volunteer developer base for >the format, so no commercial realities should intrude :]) [just ignoring >_my_ day job for a moment, which is not cygwin related...] Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where corporate reality would intrude. I really can't promote a debian based solution, unfortunately. >> You'd have to build a non-cygwin version of rpm to handle all of this. >> I don't know how feasible that would be. > >It's not RPM. It's not a religious preference, but IMO the dpkg format >is much more flexible than rpm... It probably is. I have no engineering preference either way but I do have a political preference. People have actually asked me, from time to time, to implement a comple RPM based installation. A lot of the packages are in RPM now both on cygwin.com and on the sourceforge site whose name escapes me. I really can't back a dpkg plan. I am sorry that I didn't make this clear before. cgf