Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:27:14 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Updated setup.ini with descriptions, categories, and dependencies
Message-ID: <20010828112714.A22388@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010827004327 DOT A14852 AT redhat DOT com> <20010828134119 DOT A25382 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <2022197257 DOT 20010828160649 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20010828142656 DOT C25382 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <9824009784 DOT 20010828163702 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20010828150605 DOT F25382 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010828150605.F25382@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:06:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 04:37:02PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>> by "recursive" i mean "dependencies for dependencies". cygwin _is_
>> required to run perl and ash, but automake itself is
>> "architecture-independent" package and will run on any platform, as
>> long as perl and /bin/sh are installed and can be run.
>
>Hmm, yes, sure. I don't have a strong opinion here so
>
>requires: ash perl

This reflects the RPM layout that I used.  If the package used libc, I
translated it to cygwin.  So, if there was no libc, there is no cygwin.
That shouldn't be a problem since ash will pull in cygwin anyway.  And,
as has been mentioned, it is actually correct since automake doesn't
use cygwin1.dll directly.

As I mentioned, I am going to be sticking with the RPM descriptions.

The categories are a little more problematic.  I don't agree with them in
some cases, but I was hoping to write a general purpose tool which generated
dependencies and categories from RPM.  If every single package is a special
case, then the tool isn't very useful.

I don't mind trashing the tool but I'd like to understand why the RPM
categories are not acceptable.

WRT, breaking up cygwin into two packages, I think that that would just be
busy work.  It would complicate my life to do this and I think it would
complicate all of our lives when the questions start cropping up on the
mailing list.

Ditto, ssh.  I've never liked the server/client distinction in RPM.  I'd
rather just keep ssh as one package.

cgf