* Christopher Faylor (03-02-26 15:59 +0100) > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:48:39PM +0100, Thorsten Kampe wrote: >>* Christopher Faylor (03-02-26 04:35 +0100) >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Thorsten Kampe wrote: >>>> * Max Bowsher (03-02-25 20:13 +0100) >>>>> Thorsten Kampe wrote: >>>>>> I checked it myself and I was wrong: the default install is exactly the >>>>>> base install (plus dependencies) and this is exactly the minimum >>>>>> install. >>>>> >>>>> For certain definitions of minimum. >>>> >>>> Well, yes. I believe the Cygwin people had strong reasons to put >>>> something in the base (default) install, so "If you uncheck something >>>> from the base packages, something certainly will fail". >>> >>> Let me say it again: You don't need to install everything in the base. >>> >>>> But I'm curious (and this question is often asked). Do you think >>>> something from the base install could be omitted /and/ having a >>>> working Cygwin install? >>> >>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2003-02/msg01982.html >>> >>> OF COURSE you don't have to install everything. You just have to >>> install what you need. A cygwin program just absolutely needs >>> the DLL everything other than that is optional. Install as much >>> or as little as you want. >> >> So you're telling me that >> >> a) there is no particular reason why the Cygwin creators made a "Base >> Category" (different to all other categories (Editors, Shells)) >> >> b) there is no particular reason why the Cygwin creators put for >> example gawk in the "Base Category" but not vim? >> >> Your explanation was: "you just have to install what you need" and >> "install as much or as little as you want". >> >> Is it reasonable to assume that more people would want gawk than vim? >> No, and even if, why not let them select "gawk" on their own?! >> >> Is it reasonable to assume that more people would /need/ to have gawk >> installed than vim? Yes, and this is the reason why gawk is in the >> default install and vim isn't. > > I'm not interested in getting into a "why is XYZ in the base category" > discussion [...].
Me neither. > That's not, AFAICT, what this discussion is about. You're right. I should have changed the subject or opened a new thread. > [...] The Base category is supposed to provide an arbitrary amount of > functionality for a Cygwin installation. It is a best guess at what is > required. Thanks for pointing this out. It was that reason I was curious about. Thorsten -- Content-Type: text/explicit; charset=ISO-8859-666 (Parental Advisory) Content-Transfer-Warning: message contains innuendos not suited for children under the age of 18 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
