This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available
- From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <ronald at landheer dot com>
- To: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:04:59 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available
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
there's been one around for ages - but at the thought of using it as a
Setup-replacement: I replied to the first paragraph written by Shankar
Unni in message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg01844.html:
> The real benefit to porting RPM or apt-get or whatever to Windows is as
> a possible replacement for the current installation system (if anyone
> considers RPM, and its associated GUIs, an improvement, that is).
To which I replied with:
> I can see it now:
> "I downloaded the abcdef RPM from my local LUG mirror and it didn't work
> - why?"
> .. umm.. Linux executable?
> I really think it is a Good Thing to have a Windows application that has
> no equivalent under *NIX take care of Cygwin installation - only a few
> days ago someone tried to run what he called a "Standard Binary" (i.e. a
> Linux executable) under Cygwin and I'm *sure* that will happen a *lot*
> more often if we use one of the more-or-less standard installers from
> Linux distributions to install our stuff..
Since then, I've been repeating that I think having a Cygwin port of RPM
is a Good Thing, as long as nobody tries to replace Setup with it.
and to quote Forrest Gump: ".. and that's all I have to say about that .."
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html