This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: setup wishes -- any volunteers
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>,<cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com>
- Subject: RE: setup wishes -- any volunteers
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:09:11 +1100
- Thread-Index: AcCzIupF1kHlfo7DQTeSTKpL7Ew9RwAAPmxQ
- Thread-Topic: setup wishes -- any volunteers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 9:52 AM
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: setup wishes -- any volunteers
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 09:27:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >I know this has been said before, but what about leveraging of an
> >existing packaging format - dpkg has all the capabilities
> you cite, and
> >they had a win32 project in place at one time. I'mm willing
> to polish my
> >elbows this weekend and see if I can make something work :
> but first I
> >would like a little buy-in that this is a good route to take.
> This gives you dependencies but I don't see that it provides you with
> anything else.
the debian format does nested dependencies based on features (ie vi
requires curses, curses is supplied by ncurses, multi sources of
features - ncurses provides termcap, as does terminfo (yes I know these
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...]
> 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 wouldn't be politically expedient for me to say no to RPM,
> of course.
> If you can come up with a plan to use it, I'd be interested.
> I think this is the way I answered the last time this question was
> raised. At least I hope I did.
Something similar for sure. Ok here's my plan
target 1) setup.exe can read and install (possibly via bootstrapping) a
target 2) setup.exe can check dependecies on a dpkg package.
target 3) "workstation" "developer" "server" "everything" install sets.
target 4) make it pretty *
* I don't care about this bit. It's not terribly important. Ease of use
& reliability are important.