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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:52:04 -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: <20010322175204.A19756@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 09:27:08AM +1100 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. 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 wouldn't be politically expedient for me to say no to RPM, of course. If you can come up with a plan to use it, I'd be interested. I think this is the way I answered the last time this question was raised. At least I hope I did. cgf