Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2000/08/22/06:46:59
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Starks-Browning" <starksb AT ebi DOT ac DOT uk>
To: <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Collection of new/updated packages available for testing (rpm)
> On Tuesday 22 Aug 00, Robert Collins writes:
> > As I see it rpms (or the debian equivalent) offer three key improvements
> > over DJ's setup.exe and any similar tar based solution:
> > * pre-post install/uninstall scripts (i.e. check if you have
/etc/services,
> > if not install it, if you do call sed and edit it rather than replacing
> > it...)
> > * dependancy tracking. Each RPM
> > * uninstall functionality (the database knows what was installed, what
> > uninstalling it will break, what to do to uninstall item x).
>
> Interesting. Would dependency tracking know that 'make' requires
> 'ash', for example?
yes.. the maintainers know what _their_ package needs, and put that in as
rpm requirements.
> Isn't it a big job for the package maintainers to get all the scripts
> & dependencies right? (Or are there automated tools for that?)
I believe there are automated tools to "get you started", but you will still
need to maintain the spec for the packages. But that can actually be easier
than dealing with (see cygwin AT sources.. I downloaded make and for some
reason it's not working.. 3 emails later "oh, so you use ash as sh!")
realistically, you, as the developer/package maintainer know what the
package needs. would you rather answer questions about things that broke
because someone else *doesnt* know, or provide them with a tool that does
know? What is less effort for you in the long run?
> Thanks,
> David
- Raw text -