Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: fixup-cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com@fixme
From: "Paul G." <pgarceau AT qwest DOT net>
Organization: Paul G.
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:33:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: attn: which, bzip2,gzip maintainers (was Re: some problems with setup.ini)
Reply-to: pgarceau AT qwest DOT net
Message-ID: <3C055840.14514.1AD3D81@localhost>
In-reply-to: <20011129015237.GA10648@redhat.com>
References: <3C052062 DOT 24566 DOT D300DA AT localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body



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.