From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F7CC3858D28 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 10:36:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1F7CC3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Nexgo.DE Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=m.gmane-mx.org Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n2snC-0009v2-MD for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:36:18 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: perl_base not in Base ? Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:36:12 +0100 Message-ID: <51253d15-02aa-65b8-a82d-973d9781dbf2@Nexgo.DE> References: <6f6dc496-455e-792a-b7d0-a65011bbaadf@cornell.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 In-Reply-To: <6f6dc496-455e-792a-b7d0-a65011bbaadf@cornell.edu> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin package maintainer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 10:36:24 -0000 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 :-)