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

Hello all

    I've just joined the list, it's great to see it's picking up
momentum, and that dpkg has been ported without FIFO's.

Some of you here may recognise me - among other things I have just taken
on maintenance of cygwin's setup.exe, and have been a cygwin net
contributor for a while now. (Chris - how long exactly ?).

I'd like to raise, _now_, the issues that have prevent full dpkg/rpm
integration into the cygwin net distribution setup program in the hope
that the key issues can be addressed early on.

1) Replacing open files. Say that setup uses berkley db3 as a .dll.
Setup can not replace that .dll itself - and any dpkg/rpm style port
will assume that it can replace that .dll. I've made a beta release of
setup.exe that *can* do this, but it needs testing and work.
2) Porting issues. Setup.exe is a win32 program, not a cygwin program.
It could dynamically open cygwin1.dll, once it's been installed, but the
core functionality, to grab packages off the net and install cygwin1.dll
in the correct place with the correct permissions has to be built in.
Thus any dpkg port that will bootstrap debian-w32 needs to be a native
win32 program, statically linked to any libraries, and able to bootstrap
itself to get any required .dll's.

I think it would be a shame for users to have to bootstrap cygwin from
cygwin.com, and then grab a *different* installer for debian-w32. IMO
setup.exe should be a direct bootstrap. Also I think that maintaining a
separate tree of binaries and source does not make sense for Cygwin
today. There simply are not enough kernel developers or package
maintainers at this point. It would be great to see some of the debian
features and capabilities brought to the existing environment IMO.

(Can you tell I'm walking a thin line here ?)

just letting you know I'm interested in how this goes,

Reply to: