setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?

Linda W
Wed Feb 16 13:39:00 GMT 2005

I can imagine during the early development of cygwin, the rpm
package types were rather "unsupportable" -- especially on a
"first install", since no unix shell or coreutils are available.

However, after the basic support is installed, what was the reasoning
for keeping packages in YAPM (YetAnotherPackageManager).

It seems even a bit more surprising considering Cygwin's early
roots coming from a RedHat...

Why is the current setup.exe "format" still the preferred format?
Would it be beneficial to start having the packages moved toward
rpm format?  It would be useful, at times, to do the equivalent
of an "rpm -qf <filelist>", or "rpm -qi" for info, etc...Yes,
one can continue to reinvent the wheel by writing utils that parse
file lists in /etc/setup, but it seems that would be 'reinventing'
the wheel for no great purpose...

So I guess I'm curious why Cygwin uses YAPM since RPM has been
ported?  I'm not looking for any religious debates -- just
technical/engineering reasons why a different package.  I'm not
"sold" on the rpm package manager, just wondering why the need
for creating another format? 

It's weird -- I tried installing an RPM, and among files that
were listed as 'missing' were /bin/rm, /bin/sh, /usr/bin/perl
and libc -- I can see RPM not knowing about the libc package
name, but the filenames?  I know they're installed, so what's
the scoop?


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list