perl_base not in Base ?

perl_base not in Base ?

[Marco Atzeri]

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

Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Achim Gratz]

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 :-)

Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Ken Brown]

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

Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Marco Atzeri]

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

Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Jon Turney]

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...

Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Achim Gratz]

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 :-)

Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Ken Brown]

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

Re: perl_base not in Base ?

[Achim Gratz]

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 :-)