Unmaintained packages in base package set

[Jon Turney <jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk>]

On 06/12/2023 17:19, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 2023-12-05 06:07, Jon Turney wrote:
[...]	
> 
>> I was kind of hoping that base packages (and "dependencies of packages 
>> in base which aren't in base themselves") aren't unmaintained, but 
>> obviously that was being optimistic...
> 
> I thought I should take a peek in hopes too, but just in case, not being 
> paranoid /much/, but like to have a bigger fan ready just in case! ;^>
> 
> Maybe we should work on publishing package adoption priority lists e.g.
> 
> 1 Base 1.1 crypto-policies 1.2 alternatives
> 2 Build 1.1 cocom (now dino) 1.2 git-archive-all 1.3 robodoc 1.4 bzip2
>      1.5 docbook... [lots of Unmaintained pkgs and deps]
> 3 Base direct deps
> 4 Build direct deps
> 5 Base indirect deps
> 6 Build indirect deps
> 
> I stopped once I looked at docbook...sob...! ;^>

I tweaked the unmaintained packages report [1] a bit so it identifies 
'base' and 'direct or indirect base dependencies'.

(But you're quite right to point out that the build requirements for a 
native Cygwin build are also important)

[1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/unmaintained.html