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: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 21:58:58 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: cygwin-apps Digest 2 Nov 2001 18:46:34 -0000 Issue 223]
Message-ID: <20011103215858.B4161@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F253 AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F253@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:57:48PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
>>Then the package should have a diff dependency, shouldn't it?
>
>Well, if the config stuff gets automated, the diff dependency becomes
>one of setup's, not of the individual packages.

Same argument, though.  I am probably beating a dead horse because I
like diff and use it scores of times a day, but if diff is a dependency
of "something" then "something" should include it as a dependency.

If diff is required by setup.exe then maybe we really do need a
setup.exe dependencies section in setup.ini.  Or, we can have setup.exe
generate dependencies on the fly, figuring out what it needs based on the
packages it is installing -- which would be sorta tricky, I guess.

If we don't do this then someone will say "huh, diff.  I don't know what
that is." and unselect it with less than satisfactory results.

At some point, I think an unselect of a package that is the target of a
dependency should have an "are you sure?" prompt.  Is this there
already?  I don't recall seeing it.  If not, shouldn't we have something
like this in the first revision?  If we don't then we'll still have
people saying "I selected gcc and it also tried to give me other stuff
that I didn't want.  I unselected those but now I can't use gcc!!!"

cgf