Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/02/02:27:53
--=-AGWV0IGiVefILzn4DmqM
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 14:15, Joshua Franklin wrote:
> > This is the same bug as has been reported twice.
> Sorry, I'm suscribed with the digest version. I should
> have waited until the next digest came in to avoid 'me
> too's.
Heh, no problems. When I'm on a digest list, I usually check the web
archive to avoid that happening - as an alternative to waiting.
> > > Also, this pertains to what I say below, but
> > > shellutils really ought to be in "base" so
> > > /etc/profile can do $(id -un)
> > This is a packaging issue, setup.exe is data driven
> So cygwin should depend on bash and shellutils.
No, the package that contains /etc/profile (setup.exe :}) needs to
depend on shellutils. Bash is irrelevant - /bin/sh is ash. Now, for
things that setup.exe depends on, they go into the base category.
> > rxvt and tcsh are not part of base, and should not
> > be. Where do you
> > suggest they go if not in shells?
> ash, bash, and tcsh are shells. rxvt is I guess an
> xterm. So we need an "xterm" (more confusion about
> X11) or "misc" or something. Is that "utils" category
> from Debian as Chris mentioned? Is there a URL for
> this Debian packages standard we are ripping off? Or
> could stuff like clear and rxvt be lumped in "misc"?
We're not quite copied from debian. Debian has 'sections' and priority.
(IIRC). See the debian policy document for more info. utils is a
catchall, it's got an X file and application maanger, a netscape file, a
replacement for w - all sorts of stuff.
> > > newlib-man doesn't cut it. Put it in devel.
> > It is a documentation package isn't it?
> So it man, then. What's it doing in "base" (see below
> about "base")? I suggested devel since all the pages
> are in man 3.
We don't have a section called man. IMO we don't want one. Most package
documentation will include man pages AND html AND README's and possibly
more.
'man' is too limiting.
> > > f. Unless those man pages in base are preformatted
> > (in
> > > which case they should be in catx, not manx), it's
> > not
> > > going to do a lot of good without groff.
> >
> > Good point.
> And less. man won't work without that or a link to it,
> I just found out from an attempted minimal install.
Please see my forwarded message setup.ini - some points where I discuss
the base and required categories. man is not a base tool.
> > Note that base != user friendly install. Base is the
> > core stuff required
> > for cygwin to work.
> Hm. I thought setup.exe was supposed to be the "user
> friendly install". And, I thought stuff required was
> just cygwin and a shell (bash by default, but you
> could mess about and get ash or tcsh to work).
ash is the default /bin/sh. (but thats a side issue).
the point about user friendly installs is that folk still want
flexability. The less absolutely essential packages the better from that
point of view. Why have bash if you are happy with ash + tcsh.
The absolute minimum grabbed by running setup will be a functioning unix
environment with few tools.
We can have empty meta packages to provide various preset
configurations. These packages are cross-category tools. Perhaps a
category called 'presets' or 'tasksets' should be created to hold these,
and a couple of inital ones created?
All thats needed to create one is a tarball with nothing in it (except,
say, /etc) and a setup.hint file. (see www.cygwin.com/setup.html for
doco on setup.hint files).
4. What I'm proposing. A user friendly GUI for installing with, and some
useful meta packages to pull in a user friendly environment - note the
distinction.
We cannot completely avoid cygwin AT cygwin DOT com questions - if we don't
have (say) gcc in the default, we'll get questions "I installed cygwin,
gcc says it's not found". And vice verca, if gcc is automatically
installed "Why does it install gcc, I just want postgresql".
Rob
--=-AGWV0IGiVefILzn4DmqM
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/0.15.0">
</HEAD>
<BODY>On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 14:15, Joshua Franklin wrote:<br>
<pre><FONT COLOR="#737373">> > This is the same bug as has been reported twice.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Sorry, I'm suscribed with the digest version. I should</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> have waited until the next digest came in to avoid 'me</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> too's. </FONT></pre>Heh, no problems. When I'm on a digest list, I usually check the web archive to avoid that happening - as an alternative to waiting.<br>
<pre><FONT COLOR="#737373">> > > Also, this pertains to what I say below, but</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > > shellutils really ought to be in "base" so</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > > /etc/profile can do $(id -un)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > This is a packaging issue, setup.exe is data driven</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> So cygwin should depend on bash and shellutils.</FONT></pre>No, the package that contains /etc/profile (setup.exe :}) needs to depend on shellutils. Bash is irrelevant - /bin/sh is ash. Now, for things that setup.exe depends on, they go into the base category.<pre><FONT COLOR="#737373"> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > rxvt and tcsh are not part of base, and should not</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > be. Where do you</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > suggest they go if not in shells?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> ash, bash, and tcsh are shells. rxvt is I guess an</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> xterm. So we need an "xterm" (more confusion about</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> X11) or "misc" or something. Is that "utils" category</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> from Debian as Chris mentioned? Is there a URL for</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> this Debian packages standard we are ripping off? Or</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> could stuff like clear and rxvt be lumped in "misc"?</FONT></pre>We're not quite copied from debian. Debian has 'sections' and priority. (IIRC). See the debian policy document for more info. utils is a catchall, it's got an X file and application maanger, a netscape file, a replacement for w - all sorts of stuff.<pre><FONT COLOR="#737373"> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > > newlib-man doesn't cut it. Put it in devel.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > It is a documentation package isn't it? </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> So it man, then. What's it doing in "base" (see below</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> about "base")? I suggested devel since all the pages</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> are in man 3.</FONT></pre>We don't have a section called man. IMO we don't want one. Most package documentation will include man pages AND html AND README's and possibly more.<br>
'man' is too limiting.<pre><FONT COLOR="#737373"> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > > f. Unless those man pages in base are preformatted</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > (in</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > > which case they should be in catx, not manx), it's</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > not</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > > going to do a lot of good without groff. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > Good point.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> And less. man won't work without that or a link to it,</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> I just found out from an attempted minimal install.</FONT></pre>Please see my forwarded message setup.ini - some points where I discuss the base and required categories. man is not a base tool. <pre><FONT COLOR="#737373"></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > Note that base != user friendly install. Base is the</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > core stuff required</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> > for cygwin to work. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> Hm. I thought setup.exe was supposed to be the "user</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> friendly install". And, I thought stuff required was</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> just cygwin and a shell (bash by default, but you</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">> could mess about and get ash or tcsh to work). </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373"></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">ash is the default /bin/sh. (but thats a side issue).</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#737373"></FONT></pre><FONT COLOR="#737373">the point about user friendly installs is that folk still want flexability. The less absolutely essential packages the better from that point of view. Why have bash if you are happy with ash + tcsh.</FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373"></FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">The absolute minimum grabbed by running setup will be a functioning unix environment with few tools.</FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373"></FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">We can have empty meta packages to provide various preset configurations. These packages are cross-category tools. Perhaps a category called 'presets' or 'tasksets' should be created to hold these, and a couple of inital ones created?</FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373"></FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">All thats needed to create one is a tarball with nothing in it (except, say, /etc) and a setup.hint file. (see </FONT><A HREF="http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html">www.cygwin.com/setup.html</A><FONT COLOR="#737373"> for doco on setup.hint files).</FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">4. What I'm proposing. A user friendly GUI for installing with, and some useful meta packages to pull in a user friendly environment - note the distinction.</FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373"></FONT><br>
<FONT COLOR="#737373">We cannot completely avoid </FONT><A HREF="mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com">cygwin AT cygwin DOT com</A><FONT COLOR="#737373"> questions - if we don't have (say) gcc in the default, we'll get questions "I installed cygwin, gcc says it's not found". And vice verca, if gcc is automatically installed "Why does it install gcc, I just want postgresql".</FONT><pre><A HREF="http://careers.yahoo.com"><FONT COLOR="#737373">Rob</FONT></A></pre></BODY>
</HTML>
--=-AGWV0IGiVefILzn4DmqM--
- Raw text -