Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/03/30/04:02:16
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: for interest: cygwin rpm on sourceforge
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > I just noticed that they are doing 1500 downloads a week... not bad.
> > take this to mean that the cygwinuser base is growing at greater
> > ~1500/packagecount per week.
> Actually, this is terrible.
> 1. Folks using cygwinrpm are installing cygwin stuff *without* using
> officially approved setup.exe utility. Yet, you can be guaranteed
> they will come to *us* asking for help when it breaks, overwrites the
> "official" port of a given package, etc.
True. Hopefully a few more developers will come in the mix though.
> 2. Many of the packages on cygwinrpm are duplicates (or OLD versions)
> packages that are now part of the official cygwin tree. This
> perl, zip, unzip, cpio, readline, automake, ncftp, wget. Q: "I have
> readline installed. It's broken" A: Is it the official readline, or
> you get it somewhere else?" How often do we ask on the list if
> is using the official setup.exe-installed version of a standard
> -- or do we just *assume* they're using the official version?
This is much worse than 1). I think it's Rue Satoh who's running the
project and he? is on the cygwin mailing list.
> This whole deal smacks of pure stubborn-ness. "I don't like the
> official installation method (even though it was the subject of months
> of debate) so I'm gonna muddy the waters with an rpm distro" "Even
> though I'm maintaining an rpm of bind for cygwin, I will not
> a binary .tar.gz so that users of the official installation method can
You are 100% right Chuck, I was only looking at the user base -
awareness of cygwin spreading..
- Raw text -