This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [HEADSUP] Base category


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 'Base'.

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?

Dave.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]