Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/03/22/19:51:39
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:39 AM
> To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com; cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: setup wishes -- any volunteers
> >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,
I don't understand this (as both formats are GPL'd AFAIK) but I'm not in
the mood for bucking corporate reality just now... what RPM resources
are available at RedHat that might make my efforts on this easier?
(Read: I'm willing to try RPM, just not as enthusiastic).
> >> 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.
Ok. Well I'll see what I can do with rpm.
- Raw text -