This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:52:37 -0500
- Subject: Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
- References: <3C04F8A1.4239.37B63A@localhost> <3C052062.24566.D300DA@localhost>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:35:30PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2001 at 20:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:45:53PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
>>>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?
>>So, you have no idea what was in the v17/v18 release but you want to
>>us it as a basis for something? Somehow the logic escapes me.
>Should have remembered. Very well, do you want a complete itemized
>list of all the file archives that were in users archive, or only a
>summation? Or, would you rather I just referenced it as something that
>you and I both worked on? Your choice.
I think I worked on (or was familiar with) packages as far back as v16
but I don't remember much about what was in them. It's likely that they
just contained the minimum needed to build gcc and gdb, though, since
that was cygwin's initial primary focus.
Since I remain satisfied with the files in the base category, I see no
reason to change. If I was to change, I don't think that the above
criteria would make sense for a base category.