setup.hints which mention Base in their category

setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Christopher Faylor]

The discussion in the cygwin list got me wondering if we had had creepage
into the Base category so, since grep is my friend, I came up with this
list:

alternatives/setup.hint                 gzip/setup.hint
ash/setup.hint                          login/setup.hint
base-files/setup.hint                   man/setup.hint
base-passwd/setup.hint                  ncurses/libncurses5/setup.hint
bash/setup.hint                         ncurses/libncurses6/setup.hint
brltty/setup.hint                       ncurses/libncurses7/setup.hint
coreutils/setup.hint                    ncurses/libncurses8/setup.hint
cygwin-doc/setup.hint                   ncurses/setup.hint
cygwin/setup.hint                       readline/libreadline4/setup.hint
diffutils/setup.hint                    readline/libreadline5/setup.hint
editrights/setup.hint                   readline/libreadline6/setup.hint
findutils/setup.hint                    rebase/setup.hint
gawk/setup.hint                         run/setup.hint
gdbm/libgdbm-devel/setup.hint           sed/setup.hint
gdbm/libgdbm/setup.hint                 tar/setup.hint
gdbm/libgdbm3/setup.hint                termcap/setup.hint
gdbm/libgdbm4/setup.hint                terminfo/setup.hint
gdbm/setup.hint                         which/setup.hint
grep/setup.hint                         zlib/setup.hint


(I obviously could have gotten this from setup.ini, too)

So the question is: Does this list look right.  I'm not sure about
brltty and gdbm.  And I also wonder about ncurses, readline, and zlib.
While they probably do get used by default anyway, I wonder why they
have to be in Base.  Is there a broken dependency somewhere?  If not, it
seems like they would be loaded automatically by anything in Base which
needed them.

cgf

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jun  6 11:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> The discussion in the cygwin list got me wondering if we had had creepage
> into the Base category so, since grep is my friend, I came up with this
> list:
> 
> alternatives/setup.hint                 gzip/setup.hint
> ash/setup.hint                          login/setup.hint
> base-files/setup.hint                   man/setup.hint
> base-passwd/setup.hint                  ncurses/libncurses5/setup.hint
> bash/setup.hint                         ncurses/libncurses6/setup.hint
> brltty/setup.hint                       ncurses/libncurses7/setup.hint
> coreutils/setup.hint                    ncurses/libncurses8/setup.hint
> cygwin-doc/setup.hint                   ncurses/setup.hint
> cygwin/setup.hint                       readline/libreadline4/setup.hint
> diffutils/setup.hint                    readline/libreadline5/setup.hint
> editrights/setup.hint                   readline/libreadline6/setup.hint
> findutils/setup.hint                    rebase/setup.hint
> gawk/setup.hint                         run/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm-devel/setup.hint           sed/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm/setup.hint                 tar/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm3/setup.hint                termcap/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm4/setup.hint                terminfo/setup.hint
> gdbm/setup.hint                         which/setup.hint
> grep/setup.hint                         zlib/setup.hint
> 
> 
> (I obviously could have gotten this from setup.ini, too)
> 
> So the question is: Does this list look right.  I'm not sure about
> brltty and gdbm.  And I also wonder about ncurses, readline, and zlib.
> While they probably do get used by default anyway, I wonder why they
> have to be in Base.  Is there a broken dependency somewhere?  If not, it
> seems like they would be loaded automatically by anything in Base which
> needed them.

I agree for gdbm and everything else which is basically a library
(ncurses, readline, zlib).  I don't care exactly for brltty, we can also
put it into Utils.  The two problems I mentioned on the list should be
solved anyway.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Frank Fesevur]

At 6-6-2007 18:05, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun  6 11:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> So the question is: Does this list look right.  I'm not sure about
>> brltty and gdbm.  And I also wonder about ncurses, readline, and zlib.
>> While they probably do get used by default anyway, I wonder why they
>> have to be in Base.  Is there a broken dependency somewhere?  If not, it
>> seems like they would be loaded automatically by anything in Base which
>> needed them.
> 
> I agree for gdbm and everything else which is basically a library
> (ncurses, readline, zlib).  I don't care exactly for brltty, we can also
> put it into Utils.  The two problems I mentioned on the list should be
> solved anyway.

One other thing... brltty requires util-linux, which required perl. So 
now perl became part of Base.

Regards,
Frank

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Brian Dessent]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2558 bytes --]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> alternatives/setup.hint                 gzip/setup.hint
> ash/setup.hint                          login/setup.hint
> base-files/setup.hint                   man/setup.hint
> base-passwd/setup.hint                  ncurses/libncurses5/setup.hint
> bash/setup.hint                         ncurses/libncurses6/setup.hint
> brltty/setup.hint                       ncurses/libncurses7/setup.hint
> coreutils/setup.hint                    ncurses/libncurses8/setup.hint
> cygwin-doc/setup.hint                   ncurses/setup.hint
> cygwin/setup.hint                       readline/libreadline4/setup.hint
> diffutils/setup.hint                    readline/libreadline5/setup.hint
> editrights/setup.hint                   readline/libreadline6/setup.hint
> findutils/setup.hint                    rebase/setup.hint
> gawk/setup.hint                         run/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm-devel/setup.hint           sed/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm/setup.hint                 tar/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm3/setup.hint                termcap/setup.hint
> gdbm/libgdbm4/setup.hint                terminfo/setup.hint
> gdbm/setup.hint                         which/setup.hint
> grep/setup.hint                         zlib/setup.hint
> 
> (I obviously could have gotten this from setup.ini, too)
> 
> So the question is: Does this list look right.  I'm not sure about
> brltty and gdbm.  And I also wonder about ncurses, readline, and zlib.
> While they probably do get used by default anyway, I wonder why they
> have to be in Base.  Is there a broken dependency somewhere?  If not, it
> seems like they would be loaded automatically by anything in Base which
> needed them.

I agree that there should be no lib packages in Base but that they
should rather pulled in by dependencies of whatever needs them in Base. 
This saves us from having to garbage-collect the list of Base packages. 
For example, it looks like the only package that still uses the ancient
libncurses5 is the ancient libreadline4, and there is nothing that still
requires libreadline4.  Thus both of these seem to be now obsolete and
have no business in Base.

And libgdbm-devel?!?  Why would a -devel package be in Base?

I'm a little skeptical that diffutils needs to be in Base too.  Is there
some use of diff by core packages?

FWIW, I use the attached perl script to output a wget-able list of all
Base packages including dependencies, given a setup.ini as input.   It
also shows the total size, which as of removing brltty is

# total size: 14397244 (13.7M)

Brian

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin_setup_basepkgs.pl --]
[-- Type: application/x-perl, Size: 2800 bytes --]

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:38:09PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> alternatives/setup.hint                 gzip/setup.hint
>> ash/setup.hint                          login/setup.hint
>> base-files/setup.hint                   man/setup.hint
>> base-passwd/setup.hint                  ncurses/libncurses5/setup.hint
>> bash/setup.hint                         ncurses/libncurses6/setup.hint
>> brltty/setup.hint                       ncurses/libncurses7/setup.hint
>> coreutils/setup.hint                    ncurses/libncurses8/setup.hint
>> cygwin-doc/setup.hint                   ncurses/setup.hint
>> cygwin/setup.hint                       readline/libreadline4/setup.hint
>> diffutils/setup.hint                    readline/libreadline5/setup.hint
>> editrights/setup.hint                   readline/libreadline6/setup.hint
>> findutils/setup.hint                    rebase/setup.hint
>> gawk/setup.hint                         run/setup.hint
>> gdbm/libgdbm-devel/setup.hint           sed/setup.hint
>> gdbm/libgdbm/setup.hint                 tar/setup.hint
>> gdbm/libgdbm3/setup.hint                termcap/setup.hint
>> gdbm/libgdbm4/setup.hint                terminfo/setup.hint
>> gdbm/setup.hint                         which/setup.hint
>> grep/setup.hint                         zlib/setup.hint
>> 
>> (I obviously could have gotten this from setup.ini, too)
>> 
>> So the question is: Does this list look right.  I'm not sure about
>> brltty and gdbm.  And I also wonder about ncurses, readline, and zlib.
>> While they probably do get used by default anyway, I wonder why they
>> have to be in Base.  Is there a broken dependency somewhere?  If not, it
>> seems like they would be loaded automatically by anything in Base which
>> needed them.
>
>I agree that there should be no lib packages in Base but that they
>should rather pulled in by dependencies of whatever needs them in Base. 
>This saves us from having to garbage-collect the list of Base packages. 
>For example, it looks like the only package that still uses the ancient
>libncurses5 is the ancient libreadline4, and there is nothing that still
>requires libreadline4.  Thus both of these seem to be now obsolete and
>have no business in Base.
>
>And libgdbm-devel?!?  Why would a -devel package be in Base?
>
>I'm a little skeptical that diffutils needs to be in Base too.  Is there
>some use of diff by core packages?
>
>FWIW, I use the attached perl script to output a wget-able list of all
>Base packages including dependencies, given a setup.ini as input.   It
>also shows the total size, which as of removing brltty is
>
># total size: 14397244 (13.7M)

Ok, I cleaned up all of the above.  Let the Cygwin ML whines begin.

cgf

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Brian Dessent]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> Ok, I cleaned up all of the above.

Thanks.

As a further optimization, we should move:

libncurses5
libncurses6 
libreadline4

to category _obsolete because they are not used by anything. 
libreadline5 is almost-but-not-quite obsolete, it is still in use by
only:

SWI-Prolog
units

It looks like we can also clean up references to the ancient unversioned
'libintl' package.  There are only three packages that call for this
package:

grep
xorg-x11-bin
xorg-x11-bin-dlls

All three contain the strange combination of both libintl and libintl1
in the "requires", which looks wrong.  I checked every binary under
/usr/bin and /usr/X11R6/bin and none of them depend on the unversioned
cygintl.dll.  So, libintl can be moved to _obsolete too, and the three
"requires" above need to be edited to reflect the proper versioned
library name.

grep's dependencies are especially broken:

$ cygcheck grep | grep -i intl
  C:\cygwin\bin\cygintl-3.dll

requires: bash cygwin libintl1 libpcre0 libintl libiconv2
_update-info-dir

>  Let the Cygwin ML whines begin.

Just to confirm I tested the newly edited setup.ini on a fresh install
and it worked fine, pulling in only the necessary libs for things in
Base.

Brian

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:10:14PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> Ok, I cleaned up all of the above.
>
>Thanks.
>
>As a further optimization, we should move:
>
>libncurses5
>libncurses6 
>libreadline4
>
>to category _obsolete because they are not used by anything. 
>libreadline5 is almost-but-not-quite obsolete, it is still in use by
>only:
>
>SWI-Prolog
>units
>
>It looks like we can also clean up references to the ancient unversioned
>'libintl' package.  There are only three packages that call for this
>package:
>
>grep
>xorg-x11-bin
>xorg-x11-bin-dlls
>
>All three contain the strange combination of both libintl and libintl1
>in the "requires", which looks wrong.

I checked every binary under
>/usr/bin and /usr/X11R6/bin and none of them depend on the unversioned
>cygintl.dll.  So, libintl can be moved to _obsolete too, and the three
>"requires" above need to be edited to reflect the proper versioned
>library name.
>
>grep's dependencies are especially broken:
>
>$ cygcheck grep | grep -i intl
>  C:\cygwin\bin\cygintl-3.dll
>
>requires: bash cygwin libintl1 libpcre0 libintl libiconv2
>_update-info-dir

The setup.hint reflected older, current, and newer versions of grep
(except that I missed libintl3 somehow).  I've modified it to just refer
to the newer.

Would you like to do the honors of moving the other things around as
necessary, Brian?

cgf

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Brian Dessent]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> The setup.hint reflected older, current, and newer versions of grep
> (except that I missed libintl3 somehow).  I've modified it to just refer
> to the newer.

Ah, I hadn't considered the case of older package versions.  That could
potentially be an issue but hopefully we can just continue to ignore
this limitation of the ini file grammar/design.

> Would you like to do the honors of moving the other things around as
> necessary, Brian?

I edited the mentioned setup.hints; I assume upset gets run on a cronjob
automatically?

I also noticed however that of the existing packages in _obsolete there
seems to be no consensus as to whether the package directory itself is
moved to release/_obsolete or not.  From the standpoint of end user it
shouldn't matter, but from the standpoint of ftp site tidyness should we
always physically move the files?

Brian

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jun  7 16:20, Brian Dessent wrote:
> I also noticed however that of the existing packages in _obsolete there
> seems to be no consensus as to whether the package directory itself is
> moved to release/_obsolete or not.  From the standpoint of end user it
> shouldn't matter, but from the standpoint of ftp site tidyness should we
> always physically move the files?

IMHO, yes.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 09:59:24AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jun  7 16:20, Brian Dessent wrote:
>> I also noticed however that of the existing packages in _obsolete there
>> seems to be no consensus as to whether the package directory itself is
>> moved to release/_obsolete or not.  From the standpoint of end user it
>> shouldn't matter, but from the standpoint of ftp site tidyness should we
>> always physically move the files?
>
>IMHO, yes.

Don't matter to me one way or t'other.

cgf

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jun  6 21:10, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > Ok, I cleaned up all of the above.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> As a further optimization, we should move:
> 
> libncurses5
> libncurses6 
> libreadline4
> 
> to category _obsolete because they are not used by anything. 
> libreadline5 is almost-but-not-quite obsolete, it is still in use by
> only:
> 
> SWI-Prolog
> units

I uploaded a new SWI-Prolog version 5.6.36 which uses all the new libs.
So units is the only one left using libreadline5.

John, any problem to update the units package to the latest 1.86 version?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[John Morrison]

On Thu, July 5, 2007 11:28 am, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> John, any problem to update the units package to the latest 1.86 version?

Hi Corinna,

Sorry, missed this thread - no problem afaik; I'm afraid I probably won't
be able to do this before next weekend though.

I'll also look at upgrading the package mechanism to cygport while I'm at it.

J.

Re: setup.hints which mention Base in their category

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul  5 11:40, John Morrison wrote:
> On Thu, July 5, 2007 11:28 am, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > John, any problem to update the units package to the latest 1.86 version?
> 
> Hi Corinna,
> 
> Sorry, missed this thread - no problem afaik; I'm afraid I probably won't
> be able to do this before next weekend though.

No worries.  It would just be nice if we could obsolete another old lib
at one point.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat