On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:22:49AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >On 6/28/2013 6:16 AM, Andrey Repin wrote: >>>>> The cygutils package was recently split into cygutils-extra and >>>>> cygutils-x11. Install cygutils-extra. >>>> >>>> Doesn't this suggest that cygicons-0.dll should be included >>>> in the base cygwin package? >> >>> base does not needs icons, so in IMHO no. >> >> That's a bit flawed line, IMO. >> Default install should put user's system in a consistent working order. >> Missing icons is not something I would call "consistent". > >What part of a default install [1] *requires* icons from cygicon-0.dll? > Now, if you're talking about updating an existing cygwin installation >via setup.exe [with no special package selection], then yeah -- this is >a *known* breakage. But it's better than the previous *known issue* >where a default "Base" install [1] would pull in python and bits of X11. > THAT is what this packaging change was intended to fix, and because we >did so deliberately in order to break requires: dependencies, we >couldn't very well avoid the problem you see by adding those same >requires: dependencies right back. > >Summary: READ the cygwin-announce list. Always. KNOW what you're doing >when you upgrade. AND, if you didn't do that...when you see an error >due to a "routine upgrade"...go back and DO read that list. > >[1] And by "default install" I mean "new installation of cygwin, using >setup.exe, on a virgin system that has never before had cygwin >installed", where NO special package selection is made. E.g. a "Base" >installation. > >And really, missing icons doesn't break a darn thing. It just makes >things look less pretty, temporarily, until you manually install the >correct package.
What he said. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
