On Jul 24 10:58, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 23 July 2010 11:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jul 23 09:15, Andy Koppe wrote: > >> On 23 July 2010 05:59, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 05:38:24AM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: > >> >>Unmet Dependencies Found [in bold] > >> >>The following packages are required but have not been selected. > >> >> > >> >>Package: binutils > >> >> Required by: gcc4-g++ > >> >> > >> >>Package: gcc4-core > >> >> Required by: gcc4-g++ > >> >> > >> >>[tickbox] Install these packages to meet dependencies (RECOMMENDED) > >> >> > >> >>(That tickbox is pre-ticked. If you untick it and click Next you get > >> >>an appropriate warning about breaking your installation.) > >> >> > >> >>I think that's okay(ish), although sensitive users might read the > >> >>sentence above the list as accusing them of failing to add the > >> >>dependencies. How about "The following packages are required to > >> >>satisfy dependencies of your selection."? > >> > > >> > That sounds ok I guess. Please check this in and I'll roll a new > >> > setup.exe release. > >> > >> I don't think I've got commit access. > > > > I've applied the patch. > > Thanks! > > Do we still want to tweak the wording?
We could. Is the above "The following packages are required to satisfy dependencies of your selection." ok? I'm wondering if it's a bit too wordy, but I admit I have no better way to say this. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
