Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available From: Robert Collins To: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak Cc: Charles Wilson , cygwin@cygwin.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-aWuCdWblVSpxBp04uTRV" Organization: Message-Id: <1048937782.1163.156.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 29 Mar 2003 22:36:22 +1100 --=-aWuCdWblVSpxBp04uTRV Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 21:04, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > >> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from > >> Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years. > > And mine wasn't the first. > I aired my concern not at the thought of having a port of RPM - I know=20 > there's been one around for ages - but at the thought of using it as a=20 > Setup-replacement: I replied to the first paragraph written by Shankar=20 > Unni in message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg01844.html: Ah. Well it's been a long standing goal for dpkg or rpm support in setup. The UI wouldn't change, and both rpm and dpkg have architecture identifiers, so any third party packages will refuse to install with sensible error messages - so I don't understand the specific concern you have... could you clarify? Cheers, Rob --=20 GPG key available at: . --=-aWuCdWblVSpxBp04uTRV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+hYU2I5+kQ8LJcoIRAnNWAJ4rDRVjARBvtlu6Og4ZGLQnCPO4NQCgjwC2 v93/pCBRoX5+7V9/F3VdrKQ= =mIDv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-aWuCdWblVSpxBp04uTRV--