[HEADSUP] Base category
Sat Dec 6 19:36:00 GMT 2014
On Dec 6 13:52, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > 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.
I see. This would be a matter of maintainance I guess. As the list
Ken assembled shows, the number of affected packages isn't *that* big,
really. The fact that a Base install will pull these packages in anyway
in conjunction with a user request which allows to reply with "No" is
what concerns me. And Ken's point about user confusion isn't something
we should take lightly.
Having said that, the ideal solution for this problem *might* be an
extension to setup: If a package is pulled in by dependency resolution,
and if this package is required by a Base package, it should be silently
OTOH, this also might be more complicated if some of the dependencies
are only indirect.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Cygwin-apps