This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?



On Feb 15, 2005, at 4:36 PM, 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...

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 would require a new setup.exe. The current setup program is a pure windows program. This is needed because it doesn't require using any cygwin program or package. If it used, say for example the cygwin1.dll, that dll couldn't be updated because windows won't allow files to be changed while they are in use.

So, the new setup would need create a temporary cygwin environment that is totally separate from any already installed cygwin environment. The environment could have rpm and do updates pointing to the cygwin environment being updated.

Or setup would need non-cygwin programs that know how to use rpm. Both of these would require rewriting setup from scratch. Do a search for discussions about why setup.exe hasn't been changed.

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?
rpm uses it's database to determine what is there or not. While /bin/sh, etc, may be on the system, they aren't in the rpm database, and hence the error.

Thanks, -linda


-- 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/



Enjoy,
Peter
-------------------------------
A Møøse once bit my sister


-- 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/


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