Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:56:38 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Made many changes to setup.html
Message-ID: <20011217005638.GA30991@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014A99 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <100801c18601$5e5ee090$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011216170336 DOT GC28210 AT redhat DOT com> <13b001c18678$e8028000$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13b001c18678$e8028000$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>> >I've altered some things (mainly cosmetic or trivial). One in particular
>> >was the recommendation to include bar as a dependency if you directly
>> >require foo, and know that foo requires bar.
>>
>> You misinterpreted what I was saying.  I was saying that you should
>> never rely on the fact that libncurses pulls in gettext if your package
>> depends directly on gettext.  You changed the wording to mean something
>> else.  I've put it back to my original meaning, which reflects questions
>> that have been raised here.
>
>And I'm saying that that is the incorrect thing to do.

No you're not.  You're not reading what I wrote.  I refuse to believe
that you would actually say that package maintainer a should rely on
package maintainer b to ensure that some of package a's direct
dependencies are met.

I am saying that if the package layout looks like this:

    a
   / \
  b    c
      / \
     b   d

you should never drop b from a's dependencies:

    a
     \
       c
      / \
     b   d

just because you happen to know that c uses b.

I can't imagine why you'd argue with that.  I assume that you aren't
actually arguing with it.

cgf