This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ITP: dpkg
- From: Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at netscape dot net>
- To: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at syncretize dot net>
- Cc: 'Cygwin-Apps' <cygwin-apps at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:48:52 -0400
- Subject: Re: ITP: dpkg
- References: <000001c22e4a$42958cf0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
Robert Collins wrote:
Now this is probably going to start a huge email wave. So I'll start by
Nothing could have woke me up more than this announcement.
making some key points:
1) Setup does not support dpkg or rpm yet, so this package is -not-
meant to interoperate with setup.exe.
I disagree about the latter comments, but time is too short. Let's just
say that my stand is that we should eventually deprecate the tar.gz
method as it is inherently flawed. I agree that setup should support
debs, but we should have a single, unified format for the
cygwin-distribution itself. Since it is a RedHat product, it only makes
sense that this format should be rpm. However, supporting debs for
auxillary installations is perfectly fine.
2) I'm not trying to 'race' Nicholas's rpm efforts. I don't think we
should -ever- place cygwin maintainers in a position where they must
have either dpkg or rpm on their home system in order to create
packages. That's why I want setup to support *both* .rpm and .deb file
formats. Conversely, I think maintainers should be able to have either
or both dpkg and rpm available as tools to use when building packages.
3) In case there is any doubt: I am not trying to make the cygwin net
distribution over in debian's image. If I wanted to do that, I would be
contributing my time to the debian-w32 port effort. I'm simply trying to
get my favourite packaging tool available for my use, and share it with
others if they want it.
I should hope not, what with their glacier-like release schedule...
Having said that, a few notes on the package:
I'm certain you know where I stand...