Re: Minimum Install for Executable Distrubution

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:48:39PM +0100, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>* Christopher Faylor (03-02-26 04:35 +0100)
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>>> * Max Bowsher (03-02-25 20:13 +0100)
>>>> Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>>>>> I checked it myself and I was wrong: the default install is exactly the
>>>>> base install (plus dependencies) and this is exactly the minimum
>>>>> install.
>>>>
>>>> For certain definitions of minimum.
>>>
>>> Well, yes.  I believe the Cygwin people had strong reasons to put
>>> something in the base (default) install, so "If you uncheck something
>>> from the base packages, something certainly will fail".
>> 
>> Let me say it again:  You don't need to install everything in the base.
>> 
>>> But I'm curious (and this question is often asked). Do you think 
>>> something from the base install could be omitted /and/ having a 
>>> working Cygwin install?
>> 
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2003-02/msg01982.html
>> 
>> OF COURSE you don't have to install everything.  You just have to
>> install what you need.  A cygwin program just absolutely needs
>> the DLL everything other than that is optional.  Install as much
>> or as little as you want.
>
>So you're telling me that
>
>a) there is no particular reason why the Cygwin creators made a "Base 
>Category" (different to all other categories (Editors, Shells))
>
>b) there is no particular reason why the Cygwin creators put for 
>example gawk in the "Base Category" but not vim?
>
>Your explanation was: "you just have to install what you need" and 
>"install as much or as little as you want".
>
>Is it reasonable to assume that more people would want gawk than vim? 
>No, and even if, why not let them select "gawk" on their own?!
>
>Is it reasonable to assume that more people would /need/ to have gawk 
>installed than vim? Yes, and this is the reason why gawk is in the 
>default install and vim isn't.
>
>I don't know these reasons for all those Base packages. But the 
>reasons are in my opinion not trivial. Omitting tar for example hasn't 
>simply the effect "so you cannot use tar" but "so you cannot install 
>via setup.exe, because the installation packages are tarred (and 
>bzipped)"[1]

As Robert has pointed out, tar isn't required for setup.  Just five seconds
of reflection on this point would make it obvious why this is so.

**cgf waits five seconds

Still don't get it?  How can you install cygwin on a system for the first
time if it requires a working tar?

I'm not interested in getting into a "why is XYZ in the base category"
discussion (although everyone should feel free to discuss it thoroughly
if they want, of course).  That's not, AFAICT, what this discussion is
about.  Now others have said it too.  You can choose to install or not
install whatever you like.  If you don't install a particular package,
then that package's functionality will not be available to you.  The
Base category is supposed to provide an arbitrary amount of
functionality for a Cygwin installation.  It is a best guess at what is
required.  Nothing is *required* from the Base category except the
Cygwin DLL.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/