This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: setup package format v. rpm, reasoning?
Peter Rehley wrote:
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.
But I already get that message using setup now -- "some files
were in use when trying to replace them, Please reboot or your
installation may not work correctly..." I thought setup used
the cygwin library...*oh*...*duh*...that must because I run cron
now...but that replacement issue is already solved in current
setup framework.
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.
----
If setup could handle installing some base package that rpm
would need to run, all of the rest of the packages could become rpm's.
Not that I'm expecting it to just magically happen,
but if it just gravitated in that direction...Wouldn't have
to happen overnight. Current setup could be enhanced to call
.rpm for rpm packaged utils, which, for now, could be build with
dependencies commented out for now unless the rpm database could
somehow be populated from any database setup might use....
But all that's beside the point if it isn't wanted. Just thought
it might make porting packages easier as, often, their sources
are even in .rpm's. Wouldn't it be "nice" if one could take a
source RPM, and just rebuild it with only minor changes in
the .spec file to have it work? Just a pipedream, perhaps...
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/