RPM's require to much knowledge of setup to port easily

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

On 06/12/2006, Linda Walsh wrote:
> >> I still don't get all the reasons behind forcing everyone into a
> >> new format.  Is it just a power trip or what?
> >>     
> >
> > Actually, the "new" (i.e., five+ year old) format was imposed on us by
> > the Trilateral Commission.  
> ---
> Ah, but you avoided answering the question.  Why did the cygwin
> project go with another package format?  It can't be because
> rpm doesn't run natively under Win -- since when installing
> system for the first time, a non-rpm setup & install process
> is used.  "Rpm" is used after the basic packages are loaded. 

Ah, the lack of a Windows RPM port was *exactly* the reason
setup.exe was created.  The simplest way to port RPM was to use
Cygwin, which then leads to a chicken/egg problem.  In all honesty
though, if you really would like to know the details of the decision-
making process that made the install process what it is today, you
can find it all in the cygwin-apps email archives.  You'll have to
go back quite a ways to find it's beginnings though.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/