Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<036b01c17860$edc6d930$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<1006938304 DOT 712 DOT 23 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20011128153938 DOT 27245 DOT qmail AT web20008 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <20011128173625 DOT GB4455 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:03:42 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	28 Nov 2001 23:05:08.0348 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FC883C0:01C17861]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
> I think that gzip and bzip2 obviously belong in the same category.

Yes.

> gzip is already in Base.  Probably bzip2 belongs there too.  I think

Hmm, ok. Now, if I can just figure out why gzip is in base... coud it be
to manually extract tar.bz2 files? In which case, tar should be there
too.

> that both should also be in "Utils".  Currently only bzip2 is in
Utils.

Fine by me.

> I don't think rxvt belongs in Base.

Neither do I. I think that shells is the most intuitive place for rxvt,
as looking for it under X11 would surely confuse someone.

> >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?

When the hand of fate pushes, it has to answer to the maintainers. Or
more to the point, I do not want to get into the habit of solving
maintainers issues for them, as that won't scale when there are lots of
packages. I'm pretty sure Chris feels the same way.

> 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.

Well, given that someone wrote an assembler in bash, perhaps bash
*should* be in development :].

Rob

- Raw text -