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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:27:14 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor 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