[ITP] rebase

Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) lhall@rfk.com
Sat Jan 25 23:09:00 GMT 2003

At 06:02 PM 1/25/2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> >>
> >> I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
> >> this is core infrastructure after all.
> >
> > "pro" from me.  Actually, rebase probably should be in the 'Base'
> > category, IMO.
>What exactly are the criteria for "Base"?
>Whilst we are talking about it, I think "ncurses" might no longer need to be
>"Base", now there is "libncurses?".
>Since rebasing is not necessary in many circumstances, should rebase be
>"Base"? It seems unnecessary to force it to be installed, especially as it
>is so easy to install packages when you need them.

Are we planning to flag DLLs that require invoking rebase when installed via 
setup?  If so, then I agree with Max's statement.

Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list