* perl_base not in Base ?
@ 2021-12-28 10:57 Marco Atzeri
2021-12-29 8:51 ` Achim Gratz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Marco Atzeri @ 2021-12-28 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
Hi Achim,
I had the impression it was in the Base category
@ perl_base
sdesc: "Perl programming language interpreter"
ldesc: "Perl programming language interpreter
Minimal install intended for use by Base packages."
category: Interpreters Perl
requires: cygwin libcrypt2 perl_autorebase
version: 5.32.1-2
Or is it supposed to be pulled by another Base program ?
Marco
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: perl_base not in Base ?
2021-12-28 10:57 perl_base not in Base ? Marco Atzeri
@ 2021-12-29 8:51 ` Achim Gratz
2021-12-29 14:25 ` Ken Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Achim Gratz @ 2021-12-29 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
Am 28.12.2021 um 11:57 schrieb Marco Atzeri:
> I had the impression it was in the Base category
>
> @ perl_base
> sdesc: "Perl programming language interpreter"
> ldesc: "Perl programming language interpreter
That split was indeed made to enable making it available for Base
packages, but that decision was never made I think.
> 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.
--
Achim.
(on the road :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: perl_base not in Base ?
2021-12-29 8:51 ` Achim Gratz
@ 2021-12-29 14:25 ` Ken Brown
2021-12-29 14:36 ` Marco Atzeri
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Brown @ 2021-12-29 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
On 12/29/2021 3:51 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Am 28.12.2021 um 11:57 schrieb Marco Atzeri:
>> I had the impression it was in the Base category
>>
>> @ perl_base
>> sdesc: "Perl programming language interpreter"
>> ldesc: "Perl programming language interpreter
>
> That split was indeed made to enable making it available for Base packages, but
> that decision was never made I think.
It makes sense to me to add it to Base. Were there any objections when that was
proposed before?
>> 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.
Ken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: perl_base not in Base ?
2021-12-29 14:25 ` Ken Brown
@ 2021-12-29 14:36 ` Marco Atzeri
2021-12-29 16:12 ` Jon Turney
2021-12-30 10:36 ` Achim Gratz
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Marco Atzeri @ 2021-12-29 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
On 29.12.2021 15:25, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 12/29/2021 3:51 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Am 28.12.2021 um 11:57 schrieb Marco Atzeri:
>>> I had the impression it was in the Base category
>>>
>>> @ perl_base
>>> sdesc: "Perl programming language interpreter"
>>> ldesc: "Perl programming language interpreter
>>
>> That split was indeed made to enable making it available for Base
>> packages, but that decision was never made I think.
>
> It makes sense to me to add it to Base. Were there any objections when
> that was proposed before?
>
>>> 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.
>
> Ken
I agree with Ken
The dependencies are very short
$ cygcheck-dep -q -R perl_base
perl_base: recursively requires ( cygwin libcrypt2 perl_autorebase
perl5_032 )
as perl_base provides perl5_032
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: perl_base not in Base ?
2021-12-29 14:25 ` Ken Brown
2021-12-29 14:36 ` Marco Atzeri
@ 2021-12-29 16:12 ` Jon Turney
2021-12-30 10:38 ` Achim Gratz
2021-12-30 10:36 ` Achim Gratz
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jon Turney @ 2021-12-29 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
On 29/12/2021 14:25, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 12/29/2021 3:51 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Am 28.12.2021 um 11:57 schrieb Marco Atzeri:
>>> I had the impression it was in the Base category
>>>
>>> @ perl_base
>>> sdesc: "Perl programming language interpreter"
>>> ldesc: "Perl programming language interpreter
>>
>> That split was indeed made to enable making it available for Base
>> packages, but that decision was never made I think.
>
> It makes sense to me to add it to Base. Were there any objections when
> that was proposed before?
>
>>> Or is it supposed to be pulled by another Base program ?
I think this was the case, at one time.
I believe something (chkdupexe?) in the 'util-linux' package (which is
in base) used to be written in perl, and so brought in perl_base.
I think it's since been rewritten in C. So nothing in the base category
requires perl_base currently (and hopefully in the future :)).
>> 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.
Yeah. It shouldn't be the case that libX is in base just because it's
required by P, so we have to notice, remember and check if it can be
removed when P changes to require libY instead...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: perl_base not in Base ?
2021-12-29 14:25 ` Ken Brown
2021-12-29 14:36 ` Marco Atzeri
2021-12-29 16:12 ` Jon Turney
@ 2021-12-30 10:36 ` Achim Gratz
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Achim Gratz @ 2021-12-30 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
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 :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: perl_base not in Base ?
2021-12-29 16:12 ` Jon Turney
@ 2021-12-30 10:38 ` Achim Gratz
2021-12-30 13:34 ` Ken Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Achim Gratz @ 2021-12-30 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
Am 29.12.2021 um 17:12 schrieb Jon Turney:
> I think this was the case, at one time.
As I said before, at least info still does; not directly, though (it
requires a bunch of Perl module distribution that will then pull in
perl_base at least).
--
Achim.
(on the road :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: perl_base not in Base ?
2021-12-30 10:38 ` Achim Gratz
@ 2021-12-30 13:34 ` Ken Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Brown @ 2021-12-30 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin-apps
On 12/30/2021 5:38 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Am 29.12.2021 um 17:12 schrieb Jon Turney:
>> I think this was the case, at one time.
>
> As I said before, at least info still does; not directly, though (it requires a
> bunch of Perl module distribution that will then pull in perl_base at least).
No, info just requires a few libs. You're thinking of texinfo, but it's not in
Base.
Ken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-30 13:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-12-28 10:57 perl_base not in Base ? Marco Atzeri
2021-12-29 8:51 ` Achim Gratz
2021-12-29 14:25 ` Ken Brown
2021-12-29 14:36 ` Marco Atzeri
2021-12-29 16:12 ` Jon Turney
2021-12-30 10:38 ` Achim Gratz
2021-12-30 13:34 ` Ken Brown
2021-12-30 10:36 ` Achim Gratz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).