X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=yN
	JaTaae8BqpaCcijdc1vA2Dy0IVDYK2SQKEPI3JdrZK2cFtXtVCShNymqONknOi8M
	A0ccOj+mvoua5O+QR3lOx3/QztwcSg5qqOpr9mKyM6Xm8azjDiMv1Ys/TUy6TQb+
	Avy+jlhvhIwc0xEv2eDI33nSlX4ZVAwD/nOWCz3nQ=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=OnS/WM3C
	o5h6DMGp70FWIDCgYOM=; b=n5teeE2Y/hyEcsVpzFfNaKlQEYmsjJNz5crmfTGJ
	ThxRVb7XpF0tbKnRyWqz58gcx1glXLxrQFJxdcyyyGK2quj+4kZ3FBKLlVY0mOtf
	/ozbyzTlv1f6gkGqFO+GZC2/XmYgEwfejHBp0Hw8pdgmRvR3x/eq30+xJKpheHck
	eXI=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	mail-oa0-f45.google.com
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.182.219.197 with SMTP id pq5mr2464890obc.64.1391019056678; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:10:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<52E92ECF.5030007@cygwin.com>
References:	<CAO2ddnb5tMR_qVov8eDqmXeStvdgsV17eyL2mzwJvYJY41s2wQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <52E7C7C6 DOT 3000606 AT gmail DOT com> <CAO2ddnY2UjXnqGJ0ve3bLkH4pctYK-2YdrO1jVpJEjnbYQHwCg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAO2ddnby4SiW+AXyqLx6QdeRtGm7g-=zM71pWJyY5b1Fp=UpJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <87y5203qn8 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <CAO2ddnajkJF00P292_dZMNoD8s1tjfHLpEmb0AiNsgZ5c0Fasw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <loom DOT 20140129T130612-117 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <52E926B1 DOT 30804 AT breisch DOT org> <loom DOT 20140129T171045-295 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <52E92ECF DOT 5030007 AT cygwin DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:10:56 +0100
Message-ID:	<CAO2ddnZpGKJP3oDuPa48JoBAWE2DjAXmkhrC9GoiWSLNtD8wtg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: setup.exe different packages
From:	BGINFO4X <bginfo4x AT kztsoftware DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

> On 1/29/2014 11:24 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
>>
>> Chris J. Breisch <chris.ml <at> breisch.org> writes:
>>>
>>> No, I don't agree with that statement. I'd be more inclined to believe
>>> that it's a bug in the command-line interface that doesn't allow you to
>>> do what the GUI does.
>>
>>
>> You can disagree all you want, the source of setup makes it pretty clear
>> that all packages in category Base must always be installed, regardless of
>> any other choices the user made.  And that's in fact what the GUI does too
>> (it goes through exactly the same code path), only that you're later able
>> to
>> deselect the "binary" package without setup checking for whether you do
>> this
>> on a Base package (note you can't uninstall or skip a Base package, so
>> that
>> you can defeat this via other means is the bug I was talking about).
>
>
> While I won't comment on whether this feature of the current setup is a
> good one or not, it was an intentional addition meant for the power user.
> It apparently is not reflected in the command line interface and shouldn't
> be used as a common installation technique.  Circumventing the normal
> dependency checking done by setup has the very real potential of leaving
> you with a broken installation.  I believe this is the reason Achim calls
> this feature a bug in setup's GUI.  If you want a working installation
> and you aren't willing to deal with the problems this feature of the GUI
> may present, don't use it.
>
> I hope this explanation helps clear up the question of why there could be
> a difference in the installation size depending on mode used.

Yes, it helps.

It seems like "base category" is "like a dependency" of bash ... ,
which can be bypassed with the setupGUI.

Thanks a lot for your time.


> --
> Larry
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> A: Yes.
>> Q: Are you sure?
>>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
>
>
> --
> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -