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: Robert Collins <rbcollins at cygwin dot com>
- Cc: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>, <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:28:12 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available
On 29 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> 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
> > 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:
> Ah. Well it's been a long standing goal for dpkg or rpm support in
That, I know - and as such, that doesn't worry me that much - as long as
it's Setup doing the work.
> 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?
I'm not all that concerned - and I'm starting to be sorry for ever airing
the minor doubt that traveled my mind as I wrote the original message:
most concern is easily evaporated by adding a bit of knowledge..
RPM and dpkg both have architecture identifiers - OK, but my concern is
exactly there: will I be able to install my Linux binaries on a Windows
box when I need them for cross-compiling (I hope so)? and will I be able
to install my Linux binaries on my Windows box by accident (I hope not)?
Porting RPM to Cygwin is a Good Thing in my book - I just hope that
whenever it is done, RPM will faithfully look for i686-pc-cygwin or
somesuch as the architecture identifier (I am not familiar with the actual
format of those identifiers, but you get what I mean).
I also hope a "sensible error message" will be something that will make it
very, very clear that, though it is (or should be) possible to install
binary packages of another platform, it is impossible to run them,
My worry is for the mis-informed newbie, and their complaints in fat green
print. And, of course, my worry is for the nerves of the RCM, which I can
guarantee will blow a fuse when 100 newbies come to the list to complain
that their RPM-installed Linux binaries aren't working - "OK, so I forced
an install, so what? That warning actually meant something?"
But, like I said, most concern is easily evaporated by adding a bit of
knowledge: if you're not worried, I won't be ;)
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html