On Dec 10 16:34, Warren Young wrote:
On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Isn't that the same for all distros? Cygwin has just a few thousand
packages, Linux distros have 10s of thousands.
I just re-did the count, and I get 4,453 for the Cygwin official repo
(x86) plus
On Dec 9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 12/9/2014 10:46 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 2:52 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 14:10, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Come to think of it. When exactly do we want to allow installing
packages without
On 12/10/2014 10:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
To me sounds wrong the concept, why we should hide this check to
the users ?
I have seen recently too many wrong dependencies pullings extra
unnecessary packages. I prefer to have users that could note the
On Dec 10 11:29, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 12/10/2014 10:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
To me sounds wrong the concept, why we should hide this check to
the users ?
I have seen recently too many wrong dependencies pullings extra
unnecessary packages. I
On Dec 9 16:04, Warren Young wrote:
On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com
wrote:
On Dec 8 15:28, Warren Young wrote:
I’ve got in mind the 2-3 times in my memory where Perl has crept into
the minimal install set via some indirect dependency.
I still
On 2014-12-10 10:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Did you (and Ken) get me wrong, by any chance?
What I was trying to say is *not* to remove the dependency dialog. What
I was trying to say is *only* to remove the check box in that dialog,
which allows to install the selected packages without
On Dec 10 12:48, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2014-12-10 10:54, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Did you (and Ken) get me wrong, by any chance?
What I was trying to say is *not* to remove the dependency dialog. What
I was trying to say is *only* to remove the check box in that dialog,
which allows to
Peter Rosin writes:
I would like to still be able to pick a single new package and leave
the rest as is, and I would like to NOT be required to download the
latest setup and run it using some newfangled command line option for
this. It is very nice to be able run the lastest setup with a few
On 2014-12-10 22:27, Achim Gratz wrote:
Peter Rosin writes:
I would like to still be able to pick a single new package and leave
the rest as is, and I would like to NOT be required to download the
latest setup and run it using some newfangled command line option for
this. It is very nice to
On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com wrote:
It boggles my mind how much is in the Cygwin package repository, and
then how much more is in Ports. To some extent, this has to be a
reflection of Sturgeon’s Law. [2]
Isn't that the same for all distros?
On Dec 8 15:28, Warren Young wrote:
On Dec 6, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com
wrote:
Also, can we automate this?
If you’re suggesting an automatic promotion of package to Base, I’d
argue for the opposite: automatic detection of dependency creep.
I’ve got
Corinna Vinschen writes:
I still don't grok why everybody is so hot on keeping the base install
so very small. Our Base package set is really tiny in comparison
with any Linux distro. Perl is default on most of them. Why not
for us? Disk space is dirt cheap these days.
It's more like the
On Dec 9 17:35, Achim Gratz wrote:
Corinna Vinschen writes:
I still don't grok why everybody is so hot on keeping the base install
so very small. Our Base package set is really tiny in comparison
with any Linux distro. Perl is default on most of them. Why not
for us? Disk space is
On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 17:35, Achim Gratz wrote:
Corinna Vinschen writes:
I still don't grok why everybody is so hot on keeping the base install
so very small. Our Base package set is really tiny in comparison
with any Linux distro. Perl is default on most
On Dec 9 14:10, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Come to think of it. When exactly do we want to allow installing
packages without also installing the deps? How much sense does
this option really have?
I've had occasion to do this when testing/debugging.
On 12/9/2014 2:52 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 14:10, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Come to think of it. When exactly do we want to allow installing
packages without also installing the deps? How much sense does
this option really have?
I've had
On 12/9/2014 10:46 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 2:52 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 9 14:10, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Come to think of it. When exactly do we want to allow installing
packages without also installing the deps? How much sense
On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Corinna Vinschen corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com wrote:
On Dec 8 15:28, Warren Young wrote:
I’ve got in mind the 2-3 times in my memory where Perl has crept into
the minimal install set via some indirect dependency.
I still don't grok why everybody is so hot on
Hi,
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
installation, I get asked if dependencies shall be fullfilled, which, as
a question, is more than borderline anyway.
Therefore, shouldn't we put all packages
On 12/6/2014 11:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi,
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
installation, I get asked if dependencies shall be fullfilled, which, as
a question, is more than borderline
On Dec 6 12:40, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/6/2014 11:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi,
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
installation, I get asked if dependencies shall be fullfilled, which,
On 12/6/2014 12:57 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 6 12:40, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/6/2014 11:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi,
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
installation, I get asked
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
installation, I get asked if dependencies shall be fullfilled, which, as
a question, is more than borderline anyway.
Therefore, shouldn't we put all
On Dec 6 13:21, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/6/2014 12:57 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 6 12:40, Ken Brown wrote:
On 12/6/2014 11:57 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi,
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain
On Dec 6 13:52, Andrew Schulman wrote:
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
installation, I get asked if dependencies shall be fullfilled, which, as
a question, is more than borderline
On 06/12/2014 18:52, Andrew Schulman wrote:
isn't it rather annoying that even Base packages have dependencies
outside the Base category? So, even if I perform a plain Base-only
installation, I get asked if dependencies shall be fullfilled, which, as
a question, is more than borderline anyway.
David Stacey writes:
I have to agree with Andrew here. Dependencies change, so decide what
should be in 'Base' and let dependencies be pulled in as required. I
have never been overly concerned that there are dependencies outside
of 'Base'.
We could make setup pull all dependencies of Base
On 06/12/14 21:19, Achim Gratz wrote:
Maybe what we should consider is removing the 'Select required
packages (RECOMMENDED)' check box on the 'Resolving Dependencies' page
in the installer. Under what use case is unticking this a sensible
idea?
Since setup doesn't have something like soft
28 matches
Mail list logo
