Message-ID: <389F175F.9EC378DE@softhome.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 21:05:03 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DJGPP Setup Utility in the making.
References: <87jegs02e44 AT enews2 DOT newsguy DOT com> <389DAEE6 DOT 5B0550A5 AT tudor21 DOT net> <389EC8D9 DOT 1A02AA45 AT softhome DOT net> <jkut9s831tukb0jbcno5sj890i73ko3c0r AT 4ax DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Damian Yerrick wrote:
> Or some fella could just port rpm.

It would be excellent, but I have looked into 
porting one of linuxish package managers - dpkg.
And here are some comments:
1) Code itself - widespread usage of fork(), pipe(),
explicit symlinks and all that stuff DJGPP does
not (yet?) have.
2) Requirements - one of the goals for DJGPP 
package manager would be minimal (ideally just DPMI) 
requirements for installation. In contrast, dpkg
requires tar, gzip, diff, bash, perl... Well, Debian's
minimal installation is about 15 MBytes...
3) Some other things I can't recall right now.

AFAIK, Richard has looked into this problem too,
and came to conclusion that writing DJGPP-oriented
utility is better than porting.

Laurynas Biveinis