This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ITP: Guile 1.5.6
----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Cobb" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Charles Wilson" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Nicholas Wourms" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; "Jan
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: ITP: Guile 1.5.6
> Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Now, all of the RPM-nuts are jumping up and down screaming "RPM! RPM!"
> > right now -- and the Debian faction is yelling "dpkg! dpkg!". BEFORE
> > voicing that, please go back and READ the 27,374 threads where this
> > has been suggested in the past. Here's a summary:
> > -- setup.exe must be able to install the packages
> > -- setup.exe is a native windows program
> > -- therefore, we'd need
> > + a native port of rpm, or
> > + change our whole modus operandi to a "two-step" procedure;
> > natively install the "core" packages from regular tarballs --
> > including an rpm package -- using a native setup.exe, and then use a
> > different tool for system maintainance (or use setup in a different
> > "mode" where it exec's the cygwin rpm.exe -- but this leads to other
> > problems: a cygwin-dependent rpm.exe won't be able to update the
> > cygwin package, unless some of the 'in-use-replace' magic from the
> > current setup is grafted into rpm)
> I'm just a plain-nut! Would it be worthwhile, in your opinion, to look
> at GNUpdate? At least, it doesn't carry any corporate baggage.
Sigh. http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-07/msg00122.html. Substitute
GNUpdate for dpkg.
Here is the recipe to get me agreeing with a specific 'native' package
Semi-formally review the rpm and dpkg and foo backend database
information model and provide a reasoned comparison. Include standalone
package file meta-information in the comparison if appropriate.
Do that, as a report, and I will seriously review its findings. It is not
'my' decision per se - we need group input on this, but I rather suspect
that having me in agreement with a proposal will help (or at least remove
one rabbit warren generator!).
I am happy with a goal of dpkg|rpm package file reading.
I am happy with a goal of dpkg|rpm local database support (with the
proviso's I made before).
I don't care about corporate baggage - whatever we use will be GPL, and
that's open enough for me.
I do care about functionality, and dpkg has enough, and AFAIK rpm has
I won't be doing a wide scale review of alternatives. If someone here
favours one over all others, do an impartial report and advocate we use that