[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


>  Yes.. but...
>  * Windows users probably don't need dependencies. Programs doesn't
> usally depend on external libraries...

Yes they do -- that's what .DLL's are all about.  Of course, the 
implementation details would probably be quite different.

The idea behind cygwin32 is that most standard unix stuff can be ported 
with little or no changes.  There's also something called mingw32 
which allows developers to use gcc to build standard Windows stuff.

For this particular project, I think the policy about what is "free"
might need to be amended slightly to allow for packages that 
utilize the proprietary Win32 APIs.   Maybe we could come up with
some guidelines that would only allow the use of APIs that are 
supported by WINE?

>  * Windows users like to move files... =)

Perhaps you haven't tried out cygwin32?  You can build a Unix style
filesystem (including mounts and symlinks) using it.  So if we
came up with a file system standard like FSSTND for Win32, based
on standard locations, and educated the users not to touch the
root directory - it would work.

>  * Would authors adopt dpkg?

Initially, I think it would probably concentrate on ports of the
standard GNU tools and other Unix-based stuff.  This would really
serve the needs of people who have to do web stuff on Windows NT,
and want to use some "real" tools.  People could also develop to
the Win32 API using gcc and mingw32, or to the Unix-style API
provided by cygwin32.  One caveat - the cygwin32 .dll is distributed
under the GPL, but not the LGPL, so it's useless for building
proprietary apps, unless you get a license from Cygnus.

There are quite a number of free software applications that already
have a Win32 port - Tcl/Tk, Python, Perl, V, wxWindows, Kaffe...

It would really be nice if there was a system such as dpkg that
would allow people to deploy these environments in a consistent
manner across their network.  If you could do this across Linux,
Win32, and possibly NeXT/Mac and the other proprietary unixes,
you'd have accomplished quite a feat.  It would then be feasible
(in a corporate environment) to develop to free software APIs and 
ditch those proprietary systems.  I'm also quite certain that 
people would migrate to Debian GNU/Linux if given the chance,
since it has a definite performance edge.

>  Perhaps a more realistic goal is to port dpkg to other popular UNIX
> variants, and `market' it as a piece of software independent of Debian.
>  (I was told that there is a SGI port being made!).

Perhaps... that would be good.  Any port would be a lot of work though.

Personally, I live in two environments - Debian and Win95.  I'd like to
see dpkg in both!

 - Jim

Attachment: pgpa2WBzlnFyX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: