[HEADSUP] Base category

David Stacey drstacey@tiscali.co.uk
Sat Dec 6 21:03:00 GMT 2014

On 06/12/2014 18:52, 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 have to agree with Andrew here. Dependencies change, so decide what 
should be in 'Base' and let dependencies be pulled in as required. I 
have never been overly concerned that there are dependencies outside of 

Maybe what we should consider is removing the 'Select required packages 
(RECOMMENDED)' check box on the 'Resolving Dependencies' page in the 
installer. Under what use case is unticking this a sensible idea?


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list