This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: ITP: dpkg

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.

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:


Feedback welcomed

I'm certain you know where I stand...


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]