This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [ITP] rebase

From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>
Cc: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:02:40 -0000
Subject: Re: [ITP] rebase
References: <20030124215135.GA1584@tishler.net> <02b601c2c3f5$05361730$78d96f83@pomello> <20030125030522.GA1272@tishler.net> <006501c2c468$c9c88600$78d96f83@pomello> <1043496105.22177.2.camel@lifelesslap> <3E32C981.2040304@ece.gatech.edu>

Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>> I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
>> this is core infrastructure after all.
>
> "pro" from me.  Actually, rebase probably should be in the 'Base'
> category, IMO.

What exactly are the criteria for "Base"?

Whilst we are talking about it, I think "ncurses" might no longer need to be
"Base", now there is "libncurses?".

Since rebasing is not necessary in many circumstances, should rebase be
"Base"? It seems unnecessary to force it to be installed, especially as it
is so easy to install packages when you need them.

Max.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ITP] rebase
  - From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)

References:
- [ITP] rebase
  - From: Jason Tishler
- Re: [ITP] rebase
  - From: Max Bowsher
- Re: [ITP] rebase
  - From: Jason Tishler
- Re: [ITP] rebase
  - From: Max Bowsher
- Re: [ITP] rebase
  - From: Robert Collins
- Re: [ITP] rebase
  - From: Charles Wilson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]