-src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a
Wed Nov 14 11:31:00 GMT 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: -src package standard: proposal #5 and #5a
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:33:06PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Earnie Boyd" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Hmm... Why not just simply create an "All" category that all
> >> automagically go to? That could be done with the setup.ini script
> >> couldn't it? That should suffice for the short and even long
> >Because packages inevitably will conflict with each other. Say
> >provides vim compiled for X11. What happens if both vims are
> >so that can be handled via symlinks, but there are corner cases, that
> >more frequent as the package list gets bigger.
> Ok, so call it "Most". Or "Almost All". Or "Major".
k. We've still got the education process to get folk to _use_ that
category rather than email in "where's my vim, it didn't install" to get
told "use the category 'almost all'". So the extra screen is a GUI tool
more than anything else.
> I still don't see a reason to invent a whole other classification
It's not a new system. It's _all_ coded and in cvs bar the selection
screen, and a one line test in set_default.
> And, now that I think of it, you're actually anticipating that there
> will be a case where we'll have two executables called "vim" in the
> cygwin distribution? I guess I'm having a hard time imaginging that.
gvim/vim/nvi are all different. And some folk have a preference. Then
you've got things like (say) fetchmail vs fetchmail+ssl. Or curl vs
curl+ssl. Some packages conflict in names but could be installed
alongside and resolved via symlinks. Others directly conflict with each
More information about the Cygwin-apps