Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Achim Gratz <Stromeko@Nexgo.DE>]

Am 29.12.2021 um 15:25 schrieb Ken Brown:
> It makes sense to me to add it to Base.  Were there any objections when 
> that was proposed before?

I don't remember, honestly.  There were/are a few problems w/ cygport 
trying to pull in perl as a dependency for perl_base, but I've patched 
those out locally.  Again, most if not all Linux distributions have 
perl_base in their default installation so it can be used in system 
scripts.  We don't have these at the moment, but we might want to later on.

>>> Or is it supposed to be pulled by another Base program ?
>>
>> Base packages should not pull in non-Base packages, but it appears 
>> that info currently fails that requirement.
> 
> A lot of packages fail that requirement.  I don't think it should be a 
> requirement.  To me, Base packages are those that we've decided should 
> be in every Cygwin installation.  If that forces other packages to be 
> installed, so be it.

As long as there is no distinction between required and recommended in 
our packaging system I think we should not have packages that are 
required from Base packages, but are not themselves in Base, e.g. 
installing "Category Base" should be idempotent with installing all 
packages in category Base.

We have a bunch of packages that are deliberately split so that one of 
them can be in category base without pulling in hundreds of dependencies 
that are only needed for optional functionality.


-- 
Achim.

(on the road :-)