On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 11:25 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> I know it seems unlikely, but Red Hat closed my bug with a patch to
> build rpm on MacOSX, with a comment like:
> Since Apple is working on this port, we don't need to.
> (Not an exact quote, but..)
Hmm yes, I noticed Dave Zarzy
On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 11:14 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Also, if you consult www.openpackages.org, you will see that that
> project
> is developing its own format, .ops, and they hope to have conversion
> tools
> which will take a .ops file and turn it into a .rpm or .deb file.
A
I know it seems unlikely, but Red Hat closed my bug with a patch
to build rpm on MacOSX, with a comment like:
Since Apple is working on this port, we don't need to.
(Not an exact quote, but..)
This is the only info I have, but it does seem strange, cause
I'd think that they would have GPL probl
Like I said, I have no opinion on the matter... merely throwing out a bit
of information from which others can derive the decision.
Personally, I don't care what packaging format is used, as long as it
works.
b.bum
___
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAI
At 17:38 Uhr -0500 20.01.2002, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
>I saw a conversation go by that mentioned the possibility of using
>an alternative to dpkg for package management...
>
>I have no particular preference but thought I would toss out that
>Apple is moving more and more to using RPM internally a
Bill Bumgarner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw a conversation go by that mentioned the possibility of using an
> alternative to dpkg for package management...
>
> I have no particular preference but thought I would toss out that Apple is
> moving more and more to using RPM internally and th
I saw a conversation go by that mentioned the possibility of using an
alternative to dpkg for package management...
I have no particular preference but thought I would toss out that Apple is
moving more and more to using RPM internally and that the OpenPKG
project-- a sort of cross platform F
