On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:13:44AM +0200, Lloeki wrote:
>so my conclusions are:
>1. there's no significant gain to switch to another bin-pkg format
>2. any real gain for a growing numper of packages would come from source-level
>support, not package support.
>=> if a switch is ever to occur, it s
On Friday 16 June 2006 06:38, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > Ah, the lack of a Windows RPM port was *exactly* the reason
> > setup.exe was created. The simplest way to port RPM was to use
> > Cygwin, which then leads to a chicken/egg problem.
>
>
> Most linux distribu
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
Ah, the lack of a Windows RPM port was *exactly* the reason
setup.exe was created. The simplest way to port RPM was to use
Cygwin, which then leads to a chicken/egg problem.
Most linux distributions have solved this issue. When one goes
to do an install o
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:30:04PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>Ah, but you avoided answering the question. Why did the cygwin project
>go with another package format?
When The King tells you to use a different format, you use a different
format. No questions asked.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info:
On 06/12/2006, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> I still don't get all the reasons behind forcing everyone into a
>> new format. Is it just a power trip or what?
>>
>
> Actually, the "new" (i.e., five+ year old) format was imposed on us by
> the Trilateral Commission.
---
Ah, but you avoided answer
Christopher Faylor wrote:
There is no one-to-one equivalent to "rpm -qi" but "rpm -qf" is equivalent
to "cygcheck -f" and "cygcheck -c " will give you the package
---
That's part of the problem. There may or may not be a
1:1 equivalent for whatever option I'm used to with rpm. I don't
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 12:49:30PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>Do you mean that you used Cygwin's rpm package to produce that RPM?
>yes.
>
>
>>> I'm sure there's some good reason for converting all
>>>packages to yet another installer, but I'm not sure I know
>>>what they a
Igor Peshansky wrote:
Do you mean that you used Cygwin's rpm package to produce that RPM?
yes.
I'm sure there's some good reason for converting all
packages to yet another installer, but I'm not sure I know
what they are. One side effect, though -- it can put a
damper on porting programs
8 matches
Mail list logo
