attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)

Paul G.
Sat Nov 17 18:56:00 GMT 2001

Just a thought:  

	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?

	Paul G.

On 28 Nov 2001 at 12:36, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:39:38AM -0800, Joshua Franklin wrote:
> >> > rxvt is still in shells, not utils
> >> 
> >> I'm still not 100% sure that utils is appropriate.
> >Me neither. I argued for "base" :)
> Arguing for "base" doesn't necessarily solve the real problem.  People
> seem to be forgetting that packages can exist in multiple categories.
> I think that gzip and bzip2 obviously belong in the same category.
> gzip is already in Base.  Probably bzip2 belongs there too.  I think
> that both should also be in "Utils".  Currently only bzip2 is in Utils.
> I don't think rxvt belongs in Base.
> >Actually...what happened to that list I made of stuff to be installed
> >by default?  IIRC, less was in that list, and we just got someone
> >complaining on about less not being installed by
> >default.  What's going on here?
> I think I pointed out that the current category list came mainly from
> Debian.  I don't agree with less being in the base.  So, as the less
> maintainer, it hasn't been moved.
> >Wasn't ``someone'' going to move around several packages?  Do the
> >maintainers have to do this themselves, or can the hand of fate push
> >around package categories?
> I have no problem with maintainers moving their packages into another
> category unless someone wants to do something nonsensical like move
> bash into "compression utilities" or something.
> cgf

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list