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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:36:25 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
Message-ID: <20011128173625.GB4455@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <1006938304 DOT 712 DOT 23 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20011128153938 DOT 27245 DOT qmail AT web20008 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20011128153938.27245.qmail@web20008.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:39:38AM -0800, Joshua Franklin wrote:
>> > rxvt is still in shells, not utils
>> 
>> I'm still not 100% sure that utils is appropriate.
>Me neither. I argued for "base" :)

Arguing for "base" doesn't necessarily solve the real problem.  People
seem to be forgetting that packages can exist in multiple categories.

I think that gzip and bzip2 obviously belong in the same category.
gzip is already in Base.  Probably bzip2 belongs there too.  I think
that both should also be in "Utils".  Currently only bzip2 is in Utils.

I don't think rxvt belongs in Base.

>Actually...what happened to that list I made of stuff to be installed
>by default?  IIRC, less was in that list, and we just got someone
>complaining on cygwin AT cygwin DOT com about less not being installed by
>default.  What's going on here?

I think I pointed out that the current category list came mainly from
Debian.  I don't agree with less being in the base.  So, as the less
maintainer, it hasn't been moved.

>Wasn't ``someone'' going to move around several packages?  Do the
>maintainers have to do this themselves, or can the hand of fate push
>around package categories?

I have no problem with maintainers moving their packages into another
category unless someone wants to do something nonsensical like move
bash into "compression utilities" or something.

cgf