RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from
>> Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
> And mine wasn't the first.
I aired my concern not at the thought of having a port of RPM - I know 
there's been one around for ages - but at the thought of using it as a 
Setup-replacement: I replied to the first paragraph written by Shankar 
Unni  in message http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-03/msg01844.html:

> The real benefit to porting RPM or apt-get or whatever to Windows is as
> a possible replacement for the current installation system (if anyone
> considers RPM, and its associated GUIs, an improvement, that is).

To which I replied with:

> I can see it now:
> "I downloaded the abcdef RPM from my local LUG mirror and it didn't work 
> - why?"
> .. umm.. Linux executable?

> I really think it is a Good Thing to have a Windows application that has
> no equivalent under *NIX take care of Cygwin installation - only a few
> days ago someone tried to run what he called a "Standard Binary" (i.e. a
> Linux executable) under Cygwin and I'm *sure* that will happen a *lot*
> more often if we use one of the more-or-less standard installers from
> Linux distributions to install our stuff..

Since then, I've been repeating that I think having a Cygwin port of RPM 
is a Good Thing, as long as nobody tries to replace Setup with it.

and to quote Forrest Gump: ".. and that's all I have to say about that .."

rlc



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/