X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=hSy2TCheeo18FHa3NS27P0wKrwOd0HoCfuIbf5pkn2a
	98tmWA8x9/BpR81y9/+zxHrYG8Nz0Cwye1LBDyQcsam/vjg7NxsIV6no0809S3Nc
	kzxMqNWcCmpexwD1MMzAzoFvvsReqKT5wFwd+uDqvlJNektffQlGZXAkNvHsqjgY
	=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 s=default; bh=pUuN3ebhy+QPvRkFtnRmK8ZHuPE=; b=iU18MpS9Fvr7LGDMk
	6BxgT6tkntT1el9R1P5U9c8jfsjVPJBjICtNMADkDlU2h/B4Bexrv3b8bzLIGKsT
	YwI2T2OOUlvT52gxUFKZlFntVEYP0jbnRed1YvNCVtqsHEVbXRWEoDt0Fhl97kwe
	ZUXFZlPf3VXF6BqXuzNsRNIlao=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS,TW_NL,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Message-ID: <51A7BB7F.3010001@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:50:07 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cygwin AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Attn: Yaakov [Was: Re: cygutils Postinstall Script Errors With Exit Code 128]
References: <CAHiT=DFj=y4PS5d_mj0erWpB-uCieE+KWh3T=J4wnuSOij5hJA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <51A684AA DOT 2060904 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <51A6948B DOT 3000807 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <20130530090831 DOT GK4471 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <20130530090831.GK4471@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/30/2013 5:08 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 29 18:51, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> But now that you mention it, is cygutils *supposed* to be in Base?
>> It is marked category: Utils, but seems to be pulled into Base only
>> because of cygwin-doc (which *is* in Base, oddly enough; shouldn't
>> it just be Doc?) listing it as a dependency.
>
> That sounds strange.  Was cygwin-doc always in Base?  It contains the
> cygwin docs and basic man pages but that doesn't really  qualify for the
> Base category.

Over the years, cygutils has "lost" a lot of content to other packages 
(standalone, util-linux, etc), and gained a smaller collection of new 
tools.  In the past, cygutils may have been considered more central than 
its current incarnation deserves.

current contents of cygutils:

banner.exe              getclip.exe             readshortcut.exe
conv.exe                ipck                    semstat.exe
cygdrop.exe             lpr.exe                 semtool.exe
cygicons-0.dll          mkshortcut.exe          shmtool.exe
cygstart.exe            msgtool.exe             winln.exe
dump.exe                putclip.exe

Other than cygstart, cygdrop and lpr(?), and maybe the new winln, I 
can't see that any of those really deserve to be in Base.  If cygwin-doc 
is truly the only thing pulling cygutils into Base, then (a) removing 
cygutils from cygwin-doc's requires:, or (b) removing cygwin-doc from 
Base, would have the (desired?) effect of removing cygutils from Base.

One caveat, mentioned in my other reply: cygutils' own requires: line 
lists dos2unix, so right now a Base install gets that package. This is 
probably desirable, but if we (effectively) remove cygutils from a Base 
install, we probably would want to add dos2unix to Base explicitly.

If we want to include (some subset of) cygutils explicitly in Base, I 
could see splitting into three subpackages:
    cygutils (Base):
       cygdrop cygstart lpr mkshortcut readshortcut winln
    cygutils-extra (Util): [requires: cygutils]
       almost everything else, including documentation and man
       pages (even for the exe's in the Base package)
    cygutils-x11 (X11): [requires: cygutils]
       the two desktop files, and the postinstall scripts that
       handle them
This way, any package that currently requires: cygutils will almost 
certainly get the tool it is looking for, without having to change its 
requires line (and besides, if cygutils is in Base you'd get those anyway).

 > Also, why does cygwin-doc depend on cygutils at all?  It only contains
 > info and man pages, so the deps should be coreutils and man,
 > but nothing else, AFAICS.

Maybe it used to install a shortcut to the documentation into the Start 
Menu, and needed mkshortcut to do so?  It doesn't do that anymore (if it 
ever did), so the dependency on cygutils sure seems superfluous.

--
Chuck


--
Chuck


--
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