Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:38:33 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
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:	<EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF79AB AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF79AB@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au>; 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

- Raw text -