[removed cygwin@cygwin from the To:]
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 08:05:02PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Lets move this to cygwin-apps.
>
>On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 08:36, Joshua Franklin wrote:
>> This doesn't help the known gettext problem, but
>> a couple setup.hint files still need updating:
>>
>> which still relies on jpeg and zlib for no reason
>
>Agreed - can the which maintainer stand up please.
Sorry. That was probably my fault. I thought I'd fixed that.
>> rxvt is still in shells, not utils
>
>I'm still not 100% sure that utils is appropriate.
Me neither.
>> And, IMHO, bzip2 gzip unzip zip are all similar enough
>> to be in the same category. Or not.
>
>Agreed. Shall we get rid of the separate archivers category?
I like the archivers category. I don't think it detracts to
have it. However, as Earnie points out, neither gzip or bzip2
are really archivers.
I really don't have a problem with both generic and specific categories.
I guess I could easily imagine massive cygwin mailing list confusion
if someone selected unzip in the "Archivers" category and then
found that it was automatically selected in the "Utils" category but
it would be sort of interesting to see if this kind of classification
helped or hurt.
Hmm. Maybe this is an argument for either "metapackages" or some kind
of way to order the presentation of categories. It might make sense
to provide the general purpose categories first, followed by the more
specific ones. So, the screen would like like this:
Utils
.
.
.
Archivers
Or, having a hierarchy (doesn't Debian do this?) might even be better:
Utils
Archivers
zip
tar
The only problem with that is that it wastes screen real estate.
cgf
