Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/28/17:48:11
Just a thought:
Since I am not sure exactly what was in the original Cygwin (v17/v18) User
Package, can we use that package as a model for what is to be considered "Base"
category by setup.exe?
Paul G.
On 28 Nov 2001 at 12:36, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:39:38AM -0800, Joshua Franklin wrote:
> >> > rxvt is still in shells, not utils
> >>
> >> I'm still not 100% sure that utils is appropriate.
> >Me neither. I argued for "base" :)
>
> Arguing for "base" doesn't necessarily solve the real problem. People
> seem to be forgetting that packages can exist in multiple categories.
>
> I think that gzip and bzip2 obviously belong in the same category.
> gzip is already in Base. Probably bzip2 belongs there too. I think
> that both should also be in "Utils". Currently only bzip2 is in Utils.
>
> I don't think rxvt belongs in Base.
>
> >Actually...what happened to that list I made of stuff to be installed
> >by default? IIRC, less was in that list, and we just got someone
> >complaining on cygwin AT cygwin DOT com about less not being installed by
> >default. What's going on here?
>
> I think I pointed out that the current category list came mainly from
> Debian. I don't agree with less being in the base. So, as the less
> maintainer, it hasn't been moved.
>
> >Wasn't ``someone'' going to move around several packages? Do the
> >maintainers have to do this themselves, or can the hand of fate push
> >around package categories?
>
> I have no problem with maintainers moving their packages into another
> category unless someone wants to do something nonsensical like move
> bash into "compression utilities" or something.
>
> cgf
>
- Raw text -