Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/29/00:34:32
On 28 Nov 2001 at 20:52, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:35:30PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
> >On 28 Nov 2001 at 20:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:45:53PM -0800, Paul G. wrote:
> >>>Since I am not sure exactly what was in the original Cygwin (v17/v18)
> >>>User Package, can we use that package as a model for what is to be
> >>>considered "Base" category by setup.exe?
> >>
> >>So, you have no idea what was in the v17/v18 release but you want to
> >>us it as a basis for something? Somehow the logic escapes me.
> >
> >Should have remembered. Very well, do you want a complete itemized
> >list of all the file archives that were in users archive, or only a
> >summation? Or, would you rather I just referenced it as something that
> >you and I both worked on? Your choice.
>
> I think I worked on (or was familiar with) packages as far back as v16
> but I don't remember much about what was in them. It's likely that they
> just contained the minimum needed to build gcc and gdb, though, since
> that was cygwin's initial primary focus.
>
> Since I remain satisfied with the files in the base category, I see no
> reason to change. If I was to change, I don't think that the above
> criteria would make sense for a base category.
Makes more sense when you put it that way. Anyway, have a listing of b20 now on my hard drive.
Found both the user.exe and the full.exe.
user.exe has a lot less than gcc or gdb. It only has some very basic unix/posix compatible utils and
includes llibiberty.a and whatever was necessary to support bash. Full.exe, on the other hand, includes egcs
(gcc/g++), tcl/tkl, ld, ar, all the runtime (including Mingw32) and gdb in addition to the basic user.exe
distribution.
How many folks who want Cygwin really do use the development capabilities? How many do not?
Developer Base is, by its nature, far different than say an end-user Base, isn't it?
Anyway, just what a couple of hours of time yielded.
Paul G.
- Raw text -