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
Message-ID: <20011103052046.46423.qmail@web20008.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 21:20:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Joshua Franklin <joshuadfranklin AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: cygwin-apps Digest 2 Nov 2001 18:46:34 -0000 Issue 223
To: cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
In-Reply-To: <1004726794.28912.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> >So cygwin should depend on bash and shellutils.
> 
> How do you figure that?  
Rob's right, it means setup.exe (for cygwin.bat and
/etc/profile) should "depend" on the bash and
shellutils packages. Hm. Evil thought--why not make
the setup.exe auto-updating feature grab the file as
/latest/setup/setup.tar.bz2, make the cinstall src
available through setup.exe. In other words, make
setup.exe a package. May be more complicated than it's
worth, I haven't seen the auto-updating code.

> If newlib-man is in "Base" then that's a bug in
> setup.exe.  It is
> supposed to be in "Doc" according to setup.ini.
No no. I agree that both man and newlib-man are "Doc",
but 
1. man is in only "Base" (where it's practically
useless without groff and less)
2. newlib-man deals with "Devel" so maybe it should be
listed there, too, or "Doc" as a seperate category
should be postponed until more comprehensive
documentation packages are available

> It does raise the whole X11 issue, though.  
Well, yes and no. The native-win version of rxvt 
is a unique animal. I'd like it in "Base" since I use
it by default, but barring a change in the setup.exe
code that creates the Desktop/Start Menu
links(desktop.cc I believe) this isn't going to
happen. 
But in either case "Util" seems more appropriate than
"Shells"

> We cannot completely avoid cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> questions 
Well, someone could port procmail and send everyhing
to /dev/null. But it's a true point.

> > What is the consensus on the meaning of the 'base'
> category?
> > 
> > Is it a) the _absolute minimum_ to run shell
> scripts and invoke
> > programs, or b) is it the core install for a
> comfortable environment?
Well, it might also be a choice to have "Base" left as
it is and make a "Core" (instead of "Util"?) for what
people probably expect (man, sed, which, etc).


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com