Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <20020330022531.48492.qmail@web20004.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:25:31 -0800 (PST) From: Joshua Daniel Franklin Subject: Re: more and base To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <1017417696.13947.ezmlm@cygwin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii My personal opinion is that one of the developers (like Rob or Chris) should just fix the categories for various packages like 'more' or 'which' that are currently in Base. Please do so for 'more' or let me know what to do. With 'more' I wanted it to be in the *default* install but not in *base*. (how??) > >> More is what? 3k? I'd love to have had it in the base install when ^^^ 23k, uncompressed. Plus another ~10k of docs. > Now, a Base-only cygwin installation may be *useless* in the sense that > "sure, cygwin works -- but I can't do anything useful with it except mv > files around, unless X Y and Z packages, which are not in Base, are > installed." But useless is not the same as non-functional. Actually, I don't know if even fileutils should be 'base'. Does something depend on 'ls', 'mv', etc? (/etc/profile depends on 'id' in shellutils I think.) And, if the big-ksh-thing becomes a package, it would be theoretically possible that someone just wants their AT&T tools and not GNU. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/