Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/29/21:25:37

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:25:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Joshua Daniel Franklin <joshuadfranklin AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: more and base
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0

My personal opinion is that one of the developers (like Rob or Chris) should
just fix the categories for various packages like 'more' or 'which' that are 
currently in Base. Please do so for 'more' or let me know what to do.

With 'more' I wanted it to be in the *default* install but not in *base*. 

>  >> More is what? 3k? I'd love to have had it in the base install  when
                    23k, uncompressed. Plus another ~10k of docs.

> Now, a Base-only cygwin installation may be *useless* in the sense that
> "sure, cygwin works -- but I can't do anything useful with it except mv
> files around, unless X Y and Z packages, which are not in Base, are
> installed."  But useless is not the same as non-functional.

Actually, I don't know if even fileutils should be 'base'. Does something
depend on
'ls', 'mv', etc? (/etc/profile depends on 'id' in shellutils I think.) And, if 
the big-ksh-thing becomes a package, it would be theoretically possible that 
someone just wants their AT&T tools and not GNU.

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019