setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?

Gary R. Van Sickle g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net
Wed Feb 16 22:41:00 GMT 2005


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:36 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?
> 
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0800, Linda W wrote:
> >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...
> 
> Cygwin's early roots did not come from Red Hat.  They came 
> from Cygnus.  That's what the "Cyg" stands for.

And here all along I thought it had something to do with cigarettes.

;-)

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle



--
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/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list