Unmaintained packages in base package set

[Jon Turney]

On 21/12/2023 04:27, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 20/12/2023 13:16, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 06/12/2023 17:19, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-05 06:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
> 
>> I tweaked the unmaintained packages report [1] a bit so it identifies 
>> 'base' and 'direct or indirect base dependencies'.
>>
>> (But you're quite right to point out that the build requirements for a 
>> native Cygwin build are also important)
>>
>> [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/unmaintained.html
> 
> 
> I could take over alternatives and bzip2.
> 
> It seems our alternatives is a subset of upstream
> 
>     https://github.com/fedora-sysv/chkconfig
> 
> I will need to look on the details of the implementation.
> I think to remember that upstream went for a road not feasible for us,
> but last I looked was long time ago, and I could remember totally wrong.

Yeah, repology seems to think there are a couple of alternative 
implementations, so the upstream version number in that report (which is 
retrieved from repology) might not be accurate.

> Nice to have for alternatives is to manage in some ways also DLLs
> so for me to remove the Lapack PATH hack.

I think the issue there is that we are dependent on the Windows loader 
to find DLLs when creating a process, and that doesn't understand Cygwin 
symlinks.  Perhaps avoidable if we were to use native symlinks, but I 
think those are still not widely available enough to make that possible...