Hello !
For my final diploma work, I've been working on porting RPM-4.1 onto Cygwin.
The result (because it works quite well, I guess) is available at this address
:
http://rpm4cygwin.eivd.ch
The full documentation will soon be available (in fact, I have to translate
it into english, as it's bee
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Yann Crausaz wrote:
> Hello !
>
> For my final diploma work, I've been working on porting RPM-4.1 onto Cygwin.
> The result (because it works quite well, I guess) is available at this address
> :
>
> http://rpm4cygwin.eivd.ch
>
> The full documentation will soon be available (
Hello,
The version of setup.exe I propose must be a bit old, isn't it ? If there's
a real interest, I'm OK to care about the latest version, but will poeple
really use RPM under Cygwin ? I'd prefer to wait a bit, to see how this port
is apreciated. In fact, at this point, I don't know if I'll have
Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood. Where can I find the source on your site?
Igor
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Yann Crausaz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The version of setup.exe I propose must be a bit old, isn't it ? If there's
> a real interest, I'm OK to care about the latest version, but will poeple
> real
Yann Crausaz wrote:
The version of setup.exe I propose must be a bit old, isn't it ? If there's
a real interest, I'm OK to care about the latest version, but will poeple
really use RPM under Cygwin ?
Good point.
The real benefit to porting RPM or apt-get or whatever to Windows is as
a possible
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 10:06:35AM -0800, Shankar Unni wrote:
> Yann Crausaz wrote:
>
> >The version of setup.exe I propose must be a bit old, isn't it ? If there's
> >a real interest, I'm OK to care about the latest version, but will poeple
> >really use RPM under Cygwin ?
>
> Good point.
>
>
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Marcel Telka wrote:
> > For that, however, these programs need to be *native Windows binaries*
> > (i.e. no cygwin layer underneath), or you'd have a chicken-and-egg
> > problem doing a first-time installation (or any time you updated cygwin
> > itself).
>
> What about lin
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Shankar Unni wrote:
> Yann Crausaz wrote:
> > The version of setup.exe I propose must be a bit old, isn't it ? If there's
> > a real interest, I'm OK to care about the latest version, but will poeple
> > really use RPM under Cygwin ?
> The real benefit to porting RPM or apt-ge
te: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:54:36 +0100 (CET)
>From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Shankar Unni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to Cygwin available
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Shankar Unni wrote:
>> Yann Crausaz w
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Yann Crausaz wrote:
> Your views are right, BUT poeple who were use to work under *NIX (like
> me) really like to find known tools as they have to change their working
> environment , and poeple trying to execute *NIX binaries under Cygwin
> will always exist ! Don't you think
I use SSH to manage windows boxs and using RPM to maintain the
installs would be alot easier then running the graphical setup tool.
My 2 cents.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygw
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 10:54:36AM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Shankar Unni wrote:
>> Yann Crausaz wrote:
>> > The version of setup.exe I propose must be a bit old, isn't it ? If there's
>> > a real interest, I'm OK to care about the latest version, but will poeple
>
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 05:44, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 10:54:36AM +0100, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> >I can see it now:
> >"I downloaded the abcdef RPM from my local LUG mirror and it didn't work -
> >why?"
> >.. umm.. Linux executable?
>
> I'm pretty sure that RPM
Robert Collins wrote:
I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from Chuck
for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
And mine wasn't the first.
Robert is correct that we've had very few (zero?) reports of "oops I
installed a Red Hat Linux rpm and it scrogged my cygwin". We have,
however, h
Yann Crausaz wrote:
Your views are right, BUT poeple who were use to work under *NIX (like me)
really like to find known tools as they have to change their working environment
, and poeple trying to execute *NIX binaries under Cygwin will always exist
! Don't you think so ?
Indeed, that's kind of t
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:05:36PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>But, them as writes the code, gets to choose. So this ^^^ is just a
>bunch of babbling.
And since you're not a lawyer, it's been established that we don't have
to pay any attention to you anyway.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: ht
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:12:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:05:36PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>But, them as writes the code, gets to choose. So this ^^^ is just a
>>bunch of babbling.
>
>And since you're not a lawyer, it's been established that we don't ha
Christopher Faylor wrote:
And since you're not a lawyer, it's been established that we don't have
to pay any attention to you anyway.
I know Chuck would get this but others might think I'm being really
really mean and might miss the obvious irony of the above.
Yep, I was amused.
You know, I thin
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:33:49PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>>And since you're not a lawyer, it's been established that we don't have
>>>to pay any attention to you anyway.
>>
>>I know Chuck would get this but others might think I'm being really
>>really mean and m
al Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28. marts 2003 05:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available
Robert Collins wrote:
> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from Chuck
> for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
And
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from
>> Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
> And mine wasn't the first.
I aired my concern not at the thought of having a port of RPM - I know
there's been one around fo
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 10:43:18AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Actually, now I'm distraught. I used to think you were just mean but
>now you've turned my whole world upside-down with this humorous jab.
>I'm crushed. I'm attempting to rebuild my crumbled world though.
>Since I found out you'r
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 10:43:18AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Actually, now I'm distraught. I used to think you were just mean but
> >now you've turned my whole world upside-down with this humorous jab.
> >I'm crushed. I'm attempting to re
Peter Ring wrote:
There's substantial evidence that RPM based distribution of Cygwin is
feasible:
http://www.holonlinux.com/product/xonwin/index.html
Just in case you don't read Japanese, go directly to the FTP site:
ftp://xow.holonlinux.com/pub/XonWindows/
PETER!
(In case anyone was wonderi
> Peter Ring wrote:
> > There's substantial evidence that RPM based distribution of Cygwin is
> > feasible:
> >
> > http://www.holonlinux.com/product/xonwin/index.html
> >
> > Just in case you don't read Japanese, go directly to the FTP site:
> >
> > ftp://xow.holonlinux.com/pub/XonWindows/
>
>
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 21:04, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> >> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from
> >> Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
> > And mine wasn't the first.
> I aired my concern not at
I'm much too honoured -- I'm sorry to say that it must be some namesake
Peter.
kind regards
Peter Ring
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29. marts 2003 04:40
To: Peter Ring
Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available
Peter Ring wrote:
Peter Ring wrote:
I'm much too honoured -- I'm sorry to say that it must be some namesake
Peter.
Nope, I'm just an idiot. In my defense, it HAS been a while (last
confirmed sighting, Nov 2000). The guy I was thinking of was *Michael*
Ring, not Peter. Sorry. I'll go hide now.
--Chuck
--
Unsu
rles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: RPM-4.1 port to cygwin available
>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:40:03 -0500
>
>
>Peter Ring wrote:
>> There's substantial evidence that RPM based distribution of Cygwin is
>> feasible:
>>
>> http://www.holon
On 29 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 21:04, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > > Robert Collins wrote:
> > >> I find this concern mystifiying though, we've had an rpm port from
> > >> Chuck for what - 3 ? 4 ? years.
> > > And
30 matches
Mail list logo
