Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/03/30/14:08:50
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >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 contribute
> >a binary .tar.gz so that users of the official installation method can
This is probably an over-reaction on my part. In some respects, RUE
Satoh's rpm stuff and the Project Heavymoon thing *predate* the cygwin
setup.exe. However, without a fully native port of rpm you can't use
rpm stuff to "bootstrap" an install.
We wanted a windows program (non-cygwin-based) that could be used to
install cygwin onto a cygwin-less system; thus, setup.exe was born --
and rpm packaging was rejected (at least for the time being). The
various RPM sites require you to already have a working cygwin
installation before you can add their rpm-packaged extras.
My main complaint is that these sites don't keep current with what
is/has been moved into the official distro. For instance, when "zip"
was added to the official distro, I moved the "zip" package on the
CygUtils site to the "obsolete" page. These rpm sites do not do that --
they continue to distribute old conflicting versions of various
> Is this really the reason for this site? That's pretty stupid. I don't
> recall ever debating this issue but maybe we should be much less forgiving
> of people asking for help when it is obvious that they are using this
> I have nothing against what is essentially a fork but forking the project
> and then expecting support to occur in the original project is not
> very considerate.
I don't believe the rpm distributors intend for cygwin AT cygwin DOT com to
provide support. It's just that the rpm users believe that cygwin@ is
THE source for ALL support. (vis. the message this morning concerning
- Raw text -