Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <3C041931.1010405@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:52:33 -0500 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Collins CC: Heribert Dahms , Mark Jones , Stephano Mariani , cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: New Install May Have a Bug References: <1006900876.2028.12.camel@lifelesswks> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Collins wrote: > On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 09:38, Heribert Dahms wrote: > >>what do you think about categories like minimal, typical, (custom), full, >>new, >>with typical as default? >> > > I think there's confusion here: categories are applied to what a package > is or does, not to the particular configuration it may fit into. > > What you are talking about is metapackages, which are implemented via > categories, but need a new screen to allow the choice - simply for user > clarity - as setup.exe can handle those packages now. Right, but the 'Base' category is both a "category" in the sense you describe, AND a metapackage(sortof) -- simply because everything in 'Base' is automatically installed. Hence "add foo to 'Base'" really means "add foo to 'required' metapackage". But I get what you're saying; 'Base' seems to be THE special case. In all other cases, 'categories' != 'metapackage' --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/