Updated setup.ini with descriptions, categories, and dependencies

Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com
Tue Aug 28 08:27:00 GMT 2001

On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 03:06:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 04:37:02PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>> by "recursive" i mean "dependencies for dependencies". cygwin _is_
>> required to run perl and ash, but automake itself is
>> "architecture-independent" package and will run on any platform, as
>> long as perl and /bin/sh are installed and can be run.
>Hmm, yes, sure. I don't have a strong opinion here so
>requires: ash perl

This reflects the RPM layout that I used.  If the package used libc, I
translated it to cygwin.  So, if there was no libc, there is no cygwin.
That shouldn't be a problem since ash will pull in cygwin anyway.  And,
as has been mentioned, it is actually correct since automake doesn't
use cygwin1.dll directly.

As I mentioned, I am going to be sticking with the RPM descriptions.

The categories are a little more problematic.  I don't agree with them in
some cases, but I was hoping to write a general purpose tool which generated
dependencies and categories from RPM.  If every single package is a special
case, then the tool isn't very useful.

I don't mind trashing the tool but I'd like to understand why the RPM
categories are not acceptable.

WRT, breaking up cygwin into two packages, I think that that would just be
busy work.  It would complicate my life to do this and I think it would
complicate all of our lives when the questions start cropping up on the
mailing list.

Ditto, ssh.  I've never liked the server/client distinction in RPM.  I'd
rather just keep ssh as one package.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list