From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from re-prd-fep-042.btinternet.com (mailomta9-re.btinternet.com [213.120.69.102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92AFF3858D28 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:12:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 92AFF3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dronecode.org.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dronecode.org.uk Received: from re-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net ([10.2.54.5]) by re-prd-fep-042.btinternet.com with ESMTP id <20211229161220.TXXO12369.re-prd-fep-042.btinternet.com@re-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net> for ; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:12:20 +0000 Authentication-Results: btinternet.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jonturney@btinternet.com; bimi=skipped X-SNCR-Rigid: 613A8DE80EC6DB63 X-Originating-IP: [81.129.146.209] X-OWM-Source-IP: 81.129.146.209 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: jonturney@btinternet.com X-VadeSecure-score: verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddruddvuddgkeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuueftkffvkffujffvgffngfevqffopdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecunecujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvfhfhjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomheplfhonhcuvfhurhhnvgihuceojhhonhdrthhurhhnvgihsegurhhonhgvtghouggvrdhorhhgrdhukheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepvddtteffkeevveejgeehgeelhfdtgefgieelgffgudetudefvdeggfeiiefftdevnecukfhppeekuddruddvledrudegiedrvddtleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddruddtfegnpdhinhgvthepkedurdduvdelrddugeeirddvtdelpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhonhdrthhurhhnvgihsegurhhonhgvtghouggvrdhorhhgrdhukhdprhgtphhtthhopegthihgfihinhdqrghpphhssegthihgfihinhdrtghomh X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean Received: from [192.168.1.103] (81.129.146.209) by re-prd-rgout-002.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net (5.8.716.04) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 613A8DE80EC6DB63 for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:12:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:12:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Subject: Re: perl_base not in Base ? Content-Language: en-GB To: "cygwin-apps@cygwin.com" References: <6f6dc496-455e-792a-b7d0-a65011bbaadf@cornell.edu> From: Jon Turney In-Reply-To: <6f6dc496-455e-792a-b7d0-a65011bbaadf@cornell.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1193.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NONE, 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: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 16:12:23 -0000 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...