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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s= default; b=KU6yz6uOd8E0SN6Cl7geMp3deOizKeaYmFqftmxfq1FjX3WOsR6+O gwot0WJkCr/+6q5T75fij9umm3gFb1cqW66ObY2OMillgOsjO+CWkDZ34KlDoyiZ idgN43WlEdOjow+fn2jZFjmgSF1B7gW8THLxFu+9NBEToVO/SCwo10= 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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=8N23uqP8PapLfAzV9AUXo3LApdo=; b=rmOjWj/MG+r3oCT3k+Az2xxfkAkm kG7uJVAWIOvv4bHatCHbXvfl103VkL8fS2kStB2nivlvV4OY+XL1kjU2ZXOHtpPs ViQ8YXZozH+xWoKcquq8lhtsAa8qyFh4tQJ690TeZmvZHuLhsK6ncvxftWbg7Jrg 8xMbIYENee7f6Hk= 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19pOd/ZYpwLjoUUkS2CFeSG Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:39:49 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Base 64-bit Cygwin now requires Perl? Message-ID: <20140113183949.GC7186@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <CAAXzdLX=PuGT8N9G19W8ykN7H6zLa5D5psXc+SMmyZfogMg5CA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <52D424E6 DOT 7010105 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20140113182252 DOT GB7186 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140113182252.GB7186@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 01:22:52PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:39:50AM -0700, Warren Young wrote: >>On 8/9/2013 11:17, Steven Penny wrote: >>> Because of this dependency line >>> >>> man >>> groff >>> perl >> >>The groff package includes several helper programs written in Perl: >>afmtodit, groffer, and grog. >> >>Red Hat and Mandriva split these utilities out into a separate >>package[*] but that would be something you'd have to prevail on cgf to >>change. > >Actually, I didn't upload the 64-bit groff. This is one of the reasons >why I had reservations about people other than the package maintainers >uploading packages. The end result is that I'm forced to deal with >someone else's decision. This has been the case for a few of my >packages, uploaded during the 64-bit transition. If I had created the >package I might have paused at the perl dependency since clearly groff >is part of base. > >In retrospect, it would have potentially made sense to use the same >versions and packaging for the 64-bit as for the 32-bit. That might >have minimized this type of problem. I forgot to add: Thanks for clarifying (reiterating?) that this is my problem to solve. I'll try to roll out a new version of groff in the next few days and use the packaging that Warren kindly pointed to. cgf -- 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