X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eboyd53sf AT gmail DOT com designates 10.52.17.82 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.52.17.82;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eboyd53sf AT gmail DOT com designates 10.52.17.82 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eboyd53sf AT gmail DOT com; dkim=pass header.i=eboyd53sf AT gmail DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120301181416.GB28713@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
References: <70952A932255A2489522275A628B97C3129F4CE5 AT xmb-sjc-233 DOT amer DOT cisco DOT com>	<20120301181416 DOT GB28713 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:20:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+sc5mnk9mkDUJb-4Kz2pRs8Vi-2iH7AD1pqqfOUg_nyojEzZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Recent upgrade to wish leads to a problem
From: Earnie Boyd <earnie AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:54:23AM -0800, Matt Seitz (matseitz) wrote:
>>"Christopher Faylor" wrote:
>>>
>>> In the meantime, if people are piling on to suggest this because they
>>> think it will cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something
>>> please be assured that this will not happen.
>>
>>OK, what would cause someone to add xinit as a dependency to something?
>
> There is nothing in what I wrote which would suggest that adding xinit as
> a dependency was a possibility.
>

I agree with Matt.  If TK is requiring the use of the X server then
the X server should be a package dependency of TK.  It wasn't a
dependency before because the X server wasn't needed but now the X
server is needed to use TK.

-- 
Earnie
-- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple