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 20:52:37 -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: <20011129015237.GA10648@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3C04F8A1 DOT 4239 DOT 37B63A AT localhost> <3C052062 DOT 24566 DOT D300DA AT localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3C052062.24566.D300DA@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:35:30PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2001 at 20:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:45:53PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
>>>Since I am not sure exactly what was in the original Cygwin (v17/v18)
>>>User Package, can we use that package as a model for what is to be
>>>considered "Base" category by setup.exe?
>>
>>So, you have no idea what was in the v17/v18 release but you want to
>>us it as a basis for something?  Somehow the logic escapes me.
>
>Should have remembered.  Very well, do you want a complete itemized
>list of all the file archives that were in users archive, or only a
>summation?  Or, would you rather I just referenced it as something that
>you and I both worked on?  Your choice.

I think I worked on (or was familiar with) packages as far back as v16
but I don't remember much about what was in them.  It's likely that they
just contained the minimum needed to build gcc and gdb, though, since
that was cygwin's initial primary focus.

Since I remain satisfied with the files in the base category, I see no
reason to change.  If I was to change, I don't think that the above
criteria would make sense for a base category.

cgf