Re: Dependency issues in setup.ini.

[Sam Edge <sam.edge@gmx.com>]

On 30/09/2017 12:23, Andrey Repin wrote:
>
>> Indeed. However, while off label usage of Cygwin is anathema to me but
>> sometimes I wish 'base' wasn't quite so big and have to pare things down
>> a little once installed, e.g. as part of a makefile- and/or
>> Eclipse-based build tree in source code control.(Which was also one of
>> my motivations for the Python stuff.)
> Rational suggestions are always welcome, I suppose.
> While my own usage of Cygwin is prone to spread thin across all aspects of my
> daily work, I can see situations, where a much smaller subset of packages
> (let's name it "core" or something) would be beneficial. I.e. when packaging
> Cygwin as part of your own application.
>
>
Again, agree. A 'core' package that has enough to get a shell up
(preferably dash not bash) would be very useful.

I don't believe in packaging Cygwin with an application - I'd rather say
"as a prerequisite, you need to have a Cygwin installation newer than
v.X" - but for build systems where you're trying (somewhat in vain
sometimes I know) to attempt deterministic behaviour it would be nice to
have a smaller subset upon which you could add just what's needed,
usually make, grep, sed, cp, mv & rm & maybe a scripter such as awk,
perl, tcl (or python!) depending upon.

Anyway, it's the weekend so I'm off.

Enjoy,
-- 
Sam

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple