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
