This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Attn: Yaakov [Was: Re: cygutils Postinstall Script Errors With Exit Code 128]
- From: Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>
- To: The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:50:07 -0400
- Subject: Re: Attn: Yaakov [Was: Re: cygutils Postinstall Script Errors With Exit Code 128]
- References: <CAHiT=DFj=y4PS5d_mj0erWpB-uCieE+KWh3T=J4wnuSOij5hJA at mail dot gmail dot com> <51A684AA dot 2060904 at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm> <51A6948B dot 3000807 at users dot sourceforge dot net> <20130530090831 dot GK4471 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
On 5/30/2013 5:08 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 29 18:51, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
But now that you mention it, is cygutils *supposed* to be in Base?
It is marked category: Utils, but seems to be pulled into Base only
because of cygwin-doc (which *is* in Base, oddly enough; shouldn't
it just be Doc?) listing it as a dependency.
That sounds strange. Was cygwin-doc always in Base? It contains the
cygwin docs and basic man pages but that doesn't really qualify for the
Over the years, cygutils has "lost" a lot of content to other packages
(standalone, util-linux, etc), and gained a smaller collection of new
tools. In the past, cygutils may have been considered more central than
its current incarnation deserves.
current contents of cygutils:
banner.exe getclip.exe readshortcut.exe
conv.exe ipck semstat.exe
cygdrop.exe lpr.exe semtool.exe
cygicons-0.dll mkshortcut.exe shmtool.exe
cygstart.exe msgtool.exe winln.exe
Other than cygstart, cygdrop and lpr(?), and maybe the new winln, I
can't see that any of those really deserve to be in Base. If cygwin-doc
is truly the only thing pulling cygutils into Base, then (a) removing
cygutils from cygwin-doc's requires:, or (b) removing cygwin-doc from
Base, would have the (desired?) effect of removing cygutils from Base.
One caveat, mentioned in my other reply: cygutils' own requires: line
lists dos2unix, so right now a Base install gets that package. This is
probably desirable, but if we (effectively) remove cygutils from a Base
install, we probably would want to add dos2unix to Base explicitly.
If we want to include (some subset of) cygutils explicitly in Base, I
could see splitting into three subpackages:
cygdrop cygstart lpr mkshortcut readshortcut winln
cygutils-extra (Util): [requires: cygutils]
almost everything else, including documentation and man
pages (even for the exe's in the Base package)
cygutils-x11 (X11): [requires: cygutils]
the two desktop files, and the postinstall scripts that
This way, any package that currently requires: cygutils will almost
certainly get the tool it is looking for, without having to change its
requires line (and besides, if cygutils is in Base you'd get those anyway).
> Also, why does cygwin-doc depend on cygutils at all? It only contains
> info and man pages, so the deps should be coreutils and man,
> but nothing else, AFAICS.
Maybe it used to install a shortcut to the documentation into the Start
Menu, and needed mkshortcut to do so? It doesn't do that anymore (if it
ever did), so the dependency on cygutils sure seems superfluous.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple