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 Delivered-To: fixup-cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com@fixme From: "Paul G." Organization: Paul G. To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:45:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini) Reply-to: pgarceau AT qwest DOT net Message-ID: <3C04F8A1.4239.37B63A@localhost> In-reply-to: <20011128173625.GB4455@redhat.com> References: <20011128153938 DOT 27245 DOT qmail AT web20008 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Just a thought: 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? Paul G. On 28 Nov 2001 at 12:36, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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 >