Robert Collins wrote: > do porting. So the point is that if RPM had been contributed, and you > maintain *just that one package* as an official package (Hey, Chuck this > goes for you too :})
Yeah, but I don't have that itch. Sorry, but I don't really *care* about rpm itself. I just liked the multidirectory format it used to separate the various source code/build "script" pieces, which is why my original packaging proposal said things like /usr/src/cygwin/SPECS/ and whatnot. I also got somewhat frustrated with it about a year ago. I was working quite a bit with Michael Ring, who was *supposed* to provide official dllized ports of berk db, and then provide a port of rpm, but he wandered off into the weeds and I haven't heard anything about that since Nov 2000. He did port some stuff and put it in a private directory on sourceware in Sep 2000 (check cygwin-apps archive), but nothing since then... Anyway, that experience kinda burned me on the whole "hey guys let's all use rpm" bandwagon... --Chuck -- 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/
