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 20:08:21 -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: <20011129010821.GB9605@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> <20011128173625 DOT GB4455 AT redhat DOT com> <036b01c17860$edc6d930$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <036b01c17860$edc6d930$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 10:03:42AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>> I think that gzip and bzip2 obviously belong in the same category.
>
>Yes.
>
>> gzip is already in Base.  Probably bzip2 belongs there too.  I think
>
>Hmm, ok. Now, if I can just figure out why gzip is in base... coud it be
>to manually extract tar.bz2 files? In which case, tar should be there
>too.

I guess this makes sense only if tar is in base too.  I'm too lazy to
check.

Hmm.  I could easily add this to the packages web page...

>> >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?
>
>When the hand of fate pushes, it has to answer to the maintainers. Or
>more to the point, I do not want to get into the habit of solving
>maintainers issues for them, as that won't scale when there are lots of
>packages. I'm pretty sure Chris feels the same way.

Absolutely.

I'd like to amend my previous position, though.  Certain categories, like
Base (and maybe only Base) should be off limits without consensus.

>> 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.
>
>Well, given that someone wrote an assembler in bash, perhaps bash
>*should* be in development :].

Ok.  I'm convinced.  Just add bash to every category, to be safe.

cgf