[HEADSUP] Base category

Ken Brown kbrown@cornell.edu
Tue Dec 9 19:10:00 GMT 2014

On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec  9 17:35, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>>> I still don't grok why everybody is so hot on keeping the base install
>>> so very small.  Our Base package set is really tiny in comparison
>>> with any Linux distro.  Perl is default on most of them.  Why not
>>> for us?  Disk space is dirt cheap these days.
>> It's more like the additional complexity and growing attack surface of
>> an install with tools you don't regularly use.  This discussion was (and
>> still is) going on for Linux just as well, only that the "more features
>> is better" camp has won.
> I'm in the latter camp, too :)
>>> The dependency resolution algorithm is in setup, not in upset, and
>>> it doesn't belong there.  setup.ini is regenerated every time a
>>> package is updated.  Who's going to do the manual inspection of the
>>> results every time?
>> Only the leaf packages that are defined to be in Base should be in that
>> group, IMHO.  The set of dependencies is going to change regardless, so
>> trying to chase them is pointless.
> I see the point.
>>> My concern is the useless "do you really want to install the following
>>> dependencies?" dialog.  It just doesn't make sense for the deps of
>>> the Base category.  Finding a neat solution which avoids this dialog
>>> would be nice to have.
>> As I said, setup.exe could treat dependencies of a Base package as
>> explicitly requested for install, just as it does for Base itself.  For
>> direct dependencies this isn't hard, following dependency chains this
>> way might require one more pass (unless we inject "Base" into the
>> dependencies we encounter).
> Right.  I was only pointing out what I was up to.  Setup definitely
> needs another tweak to support that.
> Come to think of it.  When exactly do we want to allow installing
> packages without also installing the deps?  How much sense does
> this option really have?

I've had occasion to do this when testing/debugging.  And I can imagine 
experienced users who correctly know that they can safely ignore some 
dependencies.  So I wouldn't want it to be impossible.  But maybe we can 
arrange it so that dependencies are installed by default, without a 
dialog, unless the user has explicitly requested the contrary.

For example, there could be a checkbox on an early screen saying 
something like, "For each selected package, install all of its 
dependencies (RECOMMENDED)".  The box would of course be checked by default.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list