[HEADSUP] Base category

Andrew Schulman schulman.andrew@epa.gov
Sat Dec 6 18:52:00 GMT 2014

> isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
> outside the Base category?  So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
> installation, I get asked if dependencies shall be fullfilled, which, as
> a question, is more than borderline anyway.
> Therefore, shouldn't we put all packages Base packages depend on into
> Base as well?

I can't find it in the archives now, but a year or two ago we talked about
this in the context of libargp.  There's a Base package (can't remember
which one) that depends on libargp.  But the consensus at the time was that
we shouldn't put libargp into Base, because if the other package stopped
requiring it, it wouldn't belong there on its own.

So if we're talking about permanently adding those other packages to the
Base category, I don't agree.  But it we're talking about adding them to
Base automatically only as long as another Base package requires them, then
I guess that's fine.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list