ITP: dpkg

[Nicholas Wourms]

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.
>(*) 
>
Hmm...

>
>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.
>
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.

>
>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:
>
[SNIP]

>
>Feedback welcomed
>
I'm certain you know where I stand...

Cheers,
Nicholas