--- Robert Collins <robert.collins@syncretize.net> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com
[mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Wourms
Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2002 11:09 AM
Robert,
I'll have none of this debian talk. You know full well that
I am working
very hard to get rpm-4.1 ready for inclusion into the
distribution. At
that point, Chuck and I will start figuring out ways to
interface it with
setup. Also, we will be figuring out how to best transition
setup to use
rpms. The point of this is that all this talk is a long way
off. I'm not
going to invent a new interface when others already exist.
The fact of
the matter is, that for right now, setup is well suited to perform the
task at hand, which is to support all of the future X users.
Like it or
not, there is enough of them to warrant a separate mailing list. Lets
temporarily let setup do this now and then we'll replace it
when something
better comes along.
Nicholas, no consensus has been reached for using the rpm database as
the backend. If rpm has a similar system to the one I referenced,
substitute rpm for dpkg in my previous comments. I *did not* suggest
that we use dpkg as a backend for this particular thing either - I
pointed out the best practice pattern to address the issue we are
facing. Lets stick to that topic, shall we?
Hey, you were the one who brought up debian...
For now, try listening, not taking the conversation off on tangents. I
happen to have put quite a bit of effort into the Cygwin Xfree86 project
in the past, and continue to make various contributions as and when it's
appropriate. I strongly resent your implying that I might dislike the
presence of the cygwin-xfree86 community - which I am a member of!
I am listening... I don't know where you got this one from, but I respect
your membership in the Cygwin/XFree86 community.
The simple fact is, I disagree with your proposal, and you have made no
convincing arguments to change my mind. What you are suggesting is not
what 'most' windows installers do, it is not flexible, it is a step
backwards in approach, and a proper solution is not that hard to do!
What you are suggesting is akin to Windows installers run batch files in
the background? I don't think so, so why should we run shell scripts?
Several points here: