Re: [HEADSUP] Base category

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Dec  8 15:28, Warren Young wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> 
> > Also, can we automate this?
> 
> If youâre suggesting an automatic promotion of package to Base, Iâd
> argue for the opposite: automatic detection of dependency creep.
> 
> Iâve got in mind the 2-3 times in my memory where Perl has crept into
> the minimal install set via some indirect dependency.  When this sort
> of thing happens, it should cause a red flag somewhere, so that the
> dependency creep can be pruned back again.

I still don't grok why everybody is so hot on keeping the base install
so very small.  Our Base package set is really tiny in comparison
with any Linux distro.  Perl is default on most of them.  Why not
for us?  Disk space is dirt cheap these days.

> One way to do this is to take a look at all the packages currently in
> a minimal install, decide if they really should be in that set, and
> add them to Base.  Then, on each re-generation of setup.ini, run the
> dependency resolution algorithm on the package tree and see if there
> are any packages not in Base that would have to be installed to
> satisfy the algorithm.

The dependency resolution algorithm is in setup, not in upset, and
it doesn't belong there.  setup.ini is regenerated every time a
package is updated.  Who's going to do the manual inspection of the
results every time?

My concern is the useless "do you really want to install the following
dependencies?" dialog.  It just doesn't make sense for the deps of
the Base category.  Finding a neat solution which avoids this dialog
would be nice to have.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: pgpmV3oOsfhUj.pgp
Description: PGP signature